Le v. Mullin’s Empirical Analysis
311 F.3d 1002 · 2002
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Cargle v. Mullin (2003), Bland v. Sirmons (2006)
42 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Slack v. McDaniel · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Berger 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny cautionary steps-such as instructions to the jury-offered ... to counteract improper remarks”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a state court has reviewed a claim on its merits, federal habeas relief may be granted only if the state court’s decision (1) was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, or (2) was based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may have implied that the jury had the ability to ignore the legal requirement that it must consider mitigating evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.