Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 F.3d 274 - Miller v. Johnson

Miller v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

200 F.3d 274 · 2000

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Dennis Thurl Dowthitt v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (2000), Barrientes v. Johnson (2000)

48 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

980200020102020decided

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

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Lindh v. Murphy · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Penry v. Lynaugh

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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(d) An-application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[u]nder Texas law a denial of relief by the Court of Criminal Appeals serves as a denial of relief on the merits of the claim.”
    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.