Moates v. Barkley’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 207 · 1998
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Iwachiw v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (2005), Lau v. Meddaugh (2000)
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 46 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Martin-Trigona v. Lavien · Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara · Safir v. United States Lines Inc. · United States v. Restrepo
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he unequivocal rule in this circuit ... that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua sponte without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
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.