Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 U.S. 115 - Premo v. Moore

Premo v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

562 U.S. 115 · 2011

Citation profile

155
cited by 155 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
November 2025
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 155 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Lafler v. Cooper (2012), Missouri v. Frye (2012)

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 17 states

120020112020decided

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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Chapman v. State of California · Hill v. Lockhart · Arizona v. Fulminante · Neder 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “because there was no deficient performance under Strickland or because [the defendant] suffered no Strickland prejudice,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”
    2 later decisions 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.