Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1,852 federal appellate · 473 district · 502 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41,379 later decisions (70 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Wiggins v. Smith, Warden (2003), Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
1,852 federal appellate · 473 district · 502 state decisions — followed in 34 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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Batson v. Kentucky · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Williams v. Taylor
Cited together with Slack v. McDaniel · Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Batson v. Kentucky · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
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 41,379 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.”
84 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race. Second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question. Third, in light of the parties’ submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The COA determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits. We look to the District Court’s application of AEDPA to petitioner’s constitutional claims and ask whether that resolution was debatable among jurists of reason. This threshold inquiry does not require full consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims. In fact, the statute forbids it.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How later courts have treated this case
Across 6 classified citations — whether each later court relied on, limited, or rejected this decision:
- 5cited without characterization
- 1followed
Treatment is classified from each citing court's own sentence. This is a running sample — coverage grows as the classification pass proceeds; overrulings are also tracked authoritatively in the case status.