Moore v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 1069 · 1996
Citation profile
26
cited by 26 later decisions
April 2009
most recently cited
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Moore v. Texas · Drinkard v. Johnson · Moore v. State
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so clearly incorrect that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lockhart v. Johnson
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.