Moore v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.3d 586 · 1999
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably State v. Gondor (2006), Cargle v. Mullin (2003)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 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 · Faretta v. California · Lindh v. Murphy · Darden v. Wainwright · Eddings v. Oklahoma
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding the constitutional stature of appropriate mitigating evidence in a capital case, counsel’s failure to develop or present mitigating background evidence is not per se deficient performance. To the contrary, a considered strategic or tactical decision not to present mitigating evidence that is made after a thorough investigation of the law and facts relevant to all plausible lines of defense is presumed to be within the wide range of professionally reasonable assistance defined by Strickland. Stated differently, Strickland requires that we defer to counsel’s decision not to present mitigating evidence or not to present a certain line of mitigating evidence when that decision is both fully informed and strategic, in the sense that it is expected, on the basis of sound legal reasoning, to yield some benefit or avoid some harm to the defense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he state court's subsidiary findings of specific historical facts and state court credibility determinations are ... entitled to a presumption of correctness under [pre-AEDPA] § 2254(d)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is presumed to be the master of his own defense,”
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.