Williams v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
6,891 federal appellate · 999 district · 1,228 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19,430 later decisions (138 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2026 · most notably Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division (2003), Wiggins v. Smith, Warden (2003)
6,891 federal appellate · 999 district · 1,228 state decisions — followed in 42 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (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 · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Townsend v. Sain · Brecht v. Abrahamson
Cited together with Strickland v. Washington · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Coleman v. Thompson · 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 19,430 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
1,880 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the jury would have learned that Williams’ parents had been imprisoned for the criminal neglect of Williams and his siblings, that Williams had been severely and repeatedly beaten by his father, that he had been committed to the custody of the social services bureau for two years during his parents’ incarceration (including one stint in an abusive foster home), and then, after his parents were released from prison, had been returned to his parents’ custody.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“decision reveals an obvious failure to consider the totality of the omitted mitigation evidence ... For that reason, and the remaining factors discussed in the Court’s opinion, I believe that the [state court’s] decision 'involved an unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’ ” Taylor, 529 U.S. at 416 , 120 S.Ct. at 1525 (O'Connor, J„ concurring) (citation omitted). Relying on this case and prior precedent, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that”
4 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.