Miller v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.3d 1136 · 1997
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2017
3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Simmons v. United States · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Bounds v. Smith · Douglas v. People of State of California
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An indigent criminal defendant has an absolute right to be represented by counsel, but he does not have a right to have a particular lawyer represent him. ...”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Parduhn · State v. Parduhn“[Aln indigent criminal defendant has no constitutional right to have a particular lawyer represent him.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Parduhn · State v. Parduhn“The question is not one of absolutes, but one of degrees.... [The fact that a particular service might be of benefit to an indigent defendant does not mean that the service is constitutionally required. The duty of the State under our cases is not to duplicate the legal arsenal that may be privately retained by a criminal defendant in a continuing effort to reverse his conviction, but only to assure the indigent defendant an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly in the context of the State's appellate process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Parduhn · State v. Steinly
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.