Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 542 F.3d 574 - Smiley v. Thurmer

Smiley v. Thurmer’s Empirical Analysis

542 F.3d 574 · 2008

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2020

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

50200820102020decided

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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Chapman v. State of California · Williams v. Taylor · Kotteakos v. United States

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(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 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning , but also to any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is clear from the language, facts and context of Innis , that the Supreme Court defined interrogation as (1) express questioning; or (2) its functional equivalent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.