United States v. Miell’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1621 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3571 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Gall v. United States · Hill v. Lockhart · McMann v. Richardson · 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“later consideration of the claim pursuant to a § 2255 motion was appropriate); United States v. Mugan , 441 F.3d 622 , 631 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding that the claim was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the record has been fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel's error is readily apparent.”
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.