Brown v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
519 F.3d 231 · 2008
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Brown v. Callahan (2010), Whitlock v. Brueggemann (2012)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scott v. Harris · Napue v. People of the State of Illinois · Duncan v. Walker
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Brown alleges that at this point Miller [the expert] either intentionally and in bad faith failed to conduct additional, commonly used tests (“Rh tests” and “enzyme tests”) that would have made the identification more specific and accurate, and likély excluded Brown as the donor, or, in the alternative, that Miller did conduct those tests, that those tests were conclusively exculpatory, and that Miller concealed the exculpatory results. Brown specifically alleges, that these other tests were commonly used in the same lab at the time, that Miller knew about and used those other tests in the same year, that Miller was unable to draw conclusions in similar identification cases without performing those more specific tests, and that Miller could have performed those tests in Brown’s case. Miller argues that these facts support an inference either that.Miller actually did conduct, the tests in this, case or that he knew he should have reported that his results were inconclusive without .further testing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a reply brief in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) and [the Fifth Circuit's] holding in Schultea v. Wood to plead specific facts that would overcome [the defendant's] assertion of qualified immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“show[s] a violation of the Constitution or of federal law, and then show[s] that the violation was committed by someone acting under color of state law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rich v. Palko
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.