Smith v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 808 · 1998
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty (1998), Wright v. Angelone (1998)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Strickland v. Washington · Kotteakos v. United States · Coleman v. Thompson · Wainwright v. Sykes · Brecht v. Abrahamson
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established that a decision of this Court is binding on other panels unless it is overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of the Court or an intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Noble v. Barnett, 24 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.1994), this Court specifically held that the rules governing habeas petitions had “nothing to do with the doctrine of waiver.” Id. at 588 . In so holding, this Court flatly rejected the argument that “a claim of incompetency to stand trial can never be forfeited.” Id. at 587 ; see also Clanton v. Muncy, 845 F.2d 1238, 1240-41 (4th Cir.1988) (holding that a claim of incompetency to stand trial may be defaulted). Although Noble dealt with the abuse of the writ doctrine, we believe that its holding applies with equal (if not greater) force here. Put simply, the rationale of Drope and Pate [v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 , 86 S.Ct. 836 , 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966),] are inapposite in the context of a procedural default. But see Bundy v. Dugger, 816 F.2d 564, 567 (11th Cir.1987) (stating that “a defendant can challenge his competency to stand trial for the first time in his initial habeas petition”). Accordingly, we hold that a claim of incompetency to stand trial asserted for the first time in a federal habeas petition is subject to procedural default....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“so undermine[ ] the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial can not be relied on as having produced a just result.”
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.