Lindh v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2,670 federal appellate · 468 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6,664 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Slack v. McDaniel (2000), Williams v. Taylor (2000)
2,670 federal appellate · 468 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2263 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (§ 107 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Wainwright v. Sykes · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Stone v. Powell
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Coleman v. Thompson · Teague v. Lane
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 6,664 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
216 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Demarest v. Price · Houston v. Roe“We hold that ... the new provisions of chapter 153 generally apply only to cases filed after the Act became effective.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term [i.e., aggravated felony] applies [to, inter alia, crimes relating to alien smuggling] regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph.”
16 later decisions 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.