Miranda v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
967 F.2d 392 · 1992
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Lorenzo Montez v. Mark McKinna (2000), Dion Smallwood v. Gary Gibson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma - (1999)
59 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Blockburger v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · North Carolina v. Pearce · Coleman v. Thompson
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“address the merits of unexhausted § 2254 federal habeas corpus claims if they fail, as here, to raise even a colorable federal claim, and if the interests of justice would be better served by addressing the merits of the habeas petition.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a belated application of the exhaustion rule [that] might simply require useless litigation in the state courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Opportunity for full and fair consideration” includes, but is not limited to, the procedural opportunity to raise or otherwise present a Fourth Amendment claim. It also includes the full and fair evidentiary hearing contemplated by Townsend. 5 Furthermore, it contemplates recognition and at least colorable application of the correct Fourth Amendment constitutional standards. Thus, a federal court is not precluded from considering Fourth Amendment claims in habeas corpus proceedings where the state court wilfully refuses to apply the correct and controlling constitutional standards. Deference to state court consideration of Fourth Amendment claims does not require federal blindness to a state court’s wilful refusal to apply the appropriate constitutional standard.”
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.