Tinker v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
255 F.3d 1331 · 2001
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Brownlee v. Haley (2002), Sebastian Jiminez v. Bertram Rice Warden (2001)
18 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
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · Felker v. Turpin · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · Swain v. Pressley · Lonchar v. Thomas
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Suspension Clause provides: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 2. Despite this restriction, the Supreme Court has held that “judgments about the proper scope of the writ are ‘normally for Congress to make.’ ” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 , 116 S.Ct. 2333 , 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (quoting Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 323 , 116 S.Ct. 1293 , 134 L.Ed.2d 440 (1996)). In Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 , 97 S.Ct. 1224 , 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977), the Supreme Court held that “the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person’s detention does not constitute a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 381 , 430 U.S. 372 , 97 S.Ct. 1224 , 51 L.Ed.2d 411 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] properly and timely filed petition in state court only tolls the time remaining in the federal limitation period. Thus, care must be taken to assure that sufficient time remains within the federal statutory period to file the federal petition.”
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.