Murray v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
145 F.3d 1249 · 1998
Citation profile
82 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 315 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood (1999), McCoy v. United States (2001)
82 federal appellate ·
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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Fussell v. Price · Williams v. United States · Lackey v. Johnson · Hunter v. United States
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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.