Moore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
173 F.3d 1131 · 1999
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Holland v. Florida (2010), Holland v. Florida (2010)
48 federal appellate · 5 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 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Bailey v. United States · Houston v. Lack · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Ansari v. Pahlavi · Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action; (3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[i]n computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, ... or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prior to enactment of the AEDPA,[ 3 ] federal prisoners could collaterally attack their convictions ... “at any time.” The AEDPA changed that right overnight, limiting the time period for filing § 2255 motions to one year from various triggering events. Federal prisoners whose convictions were final, and to whom none of the other triggering events applied, were suddenly without recourse. We recently joined the other circuits that have addressed this question in holding that a one-year grace period provides a reasonable time period to avoid the unjust result that would follow the application of the AEDPA’s one-year time .limit on preexisting causes of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hughbanks v. Dooley
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.