Millender v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
376 F.3d 520 · 2004
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Lundgren v. Mitchell (2006), Howard v. Bouchard (2005)
22 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Wade · Coleman v. Thompson · Estelle v. McGuire
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To be cognizable, the misconduct must have so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Even if the prosecutor’s conduct was improper or even universally condemned, we can provide relief only if the statements were so flagrant as to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[c]laims of prosecutorial misconduct are reviewed deferentially on habeas review,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Stermer v. Warren
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.