Miranda v. Leibach’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.3d 984 · 2005
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Julian v. Bartley (2007), United States v. Johnson (2005)
12 federal appellate · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson · Teague v. Lane · Brown v. Illinois
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An “egregious error” in a state court’s Fourth Amendment decision may suffice for this purpose, Turentine [v. Miller ], 80 F.3d [222] at 226 [(7th Cir.1996)], but not for the flaw it exposes in the state court’s analysis but rather for what it reveals about the bona fides of the state court’s handling of the Fourth Amendment claim, Hampton, 296 F.3d at 564 . As we explained in Hampton, “a blunder, no matter how obvious, matters only in conjunction with other circumstances that imply refusal by the state judiciary to take seriously its obligation to adjudicate claims under the Fourth Amendment.” Id.....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Monroe v. Davis“When the last state court to issue an opinion on a petitioner’s federal claim has resolved that claim on an adequate and independent state ground, federal habeas review of the claim is foreclosed. Typically this occurs when the petitioner failed to comply with a state procedural rule and the state court relied on that procedural default to refrain from reaching the merit s of the federal claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“waiver” may be used broadly to encompasses both the intentional relinquishment of a known right and the mere “failure to comply with a procedural requirement.”
1 later decision 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.