Miller v. Mays’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.3d 691 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Coleman v. Thompson · Wiggins v. Smith, Warden · Sanders v. United States · Ake v. Oklahoma
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.
“Supreme Court's admonition that '[c]onventional notions of finality ... have no place where life or liberty is at stake and infringement of constitutional rights is alleged.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zagorski v. Mays“[E]ven in cases involving the death penalty, we must afford 'profound respect' to the finality interests stemming from our prior decision denying habeas relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zagorski v. Mays“[c]onventional notions of finality of litigation have no place where life or liberty is at stake and infringement of constitutional rights is alleged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Zagorski v. Mays
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.