Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 F.3d 999 - Mills v. Singletary

Mills v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis

63 F.3d 999 · 1995

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
7
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably United States v. Kaley (2009), Matter of Personal Restraint of Benn (1998)

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 17 state decisions

3301995200020102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Coleman v. Thompson · Giglio v. United States · Townsend v. Sain

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

  1. “there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “arguments not presented in the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prov[e] that his counsel’s representation was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action was not sound strategy. The reasonableness of counsel’s performance is to be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances, and the standard of review is highly deferential.”
    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.