Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 F.3d 1062 - Clark v. Murphy

Clark v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

331 F.3d 1062 · 2003

Citation profile

299
cited by 299 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

126 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 299 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), United States v. Crawford (2004)

126 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 state decisions

2400200320102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Williams v. Taylor · Edwards v. Arizona · Brady 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 299 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(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.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he writ may not issue simply because, in our determination, a state court’s application of federal law was erroneous, clearly or otherwise. While the “objectively unreasonable” standard is not self-explanatory, at a minimum it denotes a greater degree of deference to the state courts than [the Ninth Circuit] ha[s] previously afforded them.”
    3 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.