Moore v. Calderon’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.3d 261 · 1997
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably State v. Stenson (1997), Tuan Van Tran v. Gary Lindsey Salinas Valley State Prisons (2000)
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Faretta v. California · Teague v. Lane · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois · Medlin v. Mann
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a bright-line rule for the timeliness of Faretta requests: a request is timely if made before the jury is empaneled, unless it is shown to be a tactic to secure delay.” Moore, 108 F.3d at 264 ; United States v. Arlt, 41 F.3d 516, 519 (9th Cir.1994); Savage v. Estelle, 924 F.2d 1459 , 1463 n. 7 (9th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 501 U.S. 1255 , 111 S.Ct. 2900 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1991). 12 . Under California law,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] state court decision may not be overturned on habeas review, for example, because of a conflict with Ninth Circuit-based law, but rather a writ may issue only when the state court decision is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,” an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Furman v. Wood · Houston v. Roe
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.