Miller v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis
385 F.3d 666 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 153 Ohio St. 3d 497 - State v. Beasley (2018), 115 Ohio St. 3d 22 - State v. Mundt (2007)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Irvin v. Dowd · Lindh v. Murphy
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matthews v. Ishee · Fields v. Howes“Given Orman’s express admission of bias, with no subsequent assurance of impartiality and no rehabilitation by counsel or the court by way of clarification through follow-up questions directed to the potential juror, we find Orman to have been actually biased in this case. In fact, without more, juror bias can always be presumed from such unequivocal statements as were made in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Hughes, 258 F.3d at 463 , citing United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 , 120 S. Ct. 774 (2000) (holding that the seating of a biased juror who should have been dismissed for cause requires reversal of the conviction).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Rogers
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.