Taylor v. Maddox’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.3d 992 · 2004
Citation profile
157 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 350 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), Lambert v. Blackwell (2004)
157 federal appellate · 17 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Kotteakos v. United States · Edwards v. Arizona
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 350 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n concluding that a state-court finding is unsupported by substantial evidence in the state-court record, it is not enough that we would reverse in similar circumstances if this were an appeal from a district court decision. Rather, we must be convinced that an appellate panel, applying the normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by the record.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Cook v. Schriro · Tamplin v. Muniz“was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]efore we can determine that the state-court factfinding process is defective in some material way, or perhaps non-existent, we must more than merely doubt whether the process operated properly. Rather, we must be satisfied that any appellate court to whom the defect is pointed out would be unreasonable in holding that the state court's fact-finding process was adequate.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.