Miller v. Champion’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 1249 · 1998
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Michael Wayne Williams v. John Taylor Warden (2000), Cargle v. Mullin (2003)
48 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Hill v. Lockhart · Townsend v. Sain · MacHibroda 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here ... a habeas petitioner has diligently sought to develop the factual basis underlying his habeas petition, but a state court has prevented him from doing so, ... [he] is entitled to receive an evidentiary hearing so long as his allegations, if true and not contravened by the existing factual record, would entitle him to relief.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Mullin · Bland v. Sirmons“new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Snow v. Sirmons · Ardrey v. Bravo“... § 2254(d)(1) places a new constraint on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court. Under § 2254(d)(1), the writ may issue only if one of the following two conditions is satisfied — the state-court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) “was contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Under the “contrary to” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the “unreasonable application” clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.”
4 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.