Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 F.3d 1327 - Tompkins v. Moore

Tompkins v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

193 F.3d 1327 · 1999

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. (2003), United States v. Hornaday (2004)

47 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

5501999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · Massiah v. United States

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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[A] showing of alcohol and drug abuse is a two-edged sword which can harm a capital defendant as easily as it can help him at sentencing.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"If false testimony surfaces during a trial and the government has knowledge of it, ... the government has a duty to step forward and disclose.” Brown v. Wainwright, 785 F.2d 1457, 1464 (11th Cir. 1986). "In order to prevail on a Giglio claim, a petitioner must establish that the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony, or failed to correct what he subsequently learned was false testimony, and that the falsehood was material.” Tompkins v. Moore, 193 F.3d 1327, 1339 (11th Cir. 1999).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An application to expand the certificate must be filed promptly, well before the opening brief is done. Arguments in a brief addressing issues not covered in the certificate, including any expansion granted by the court of appeals, will not be considered as a timely application for expansion of the certifícate; those issues simply will not be reviewed.”
    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.