Moss v. Hofbauer’s Empirical Analysis
286 F.3d 851 · 2002
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably State v. Myers (Slip Opinion) (2018), 164 Ohio St. 3d 9 - State v. Grate (Slip Opinion) (2020)
29 federal appellate · 10 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 · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Wade · Davis v. Alaska · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Biros v. Bagley · White v. Mitchell“A trial counsel’s failure to make an opening statement, ..., does not automatically establish the ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Haddock, 12 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that defense counsel’s decision not to present an opening statement because he did not know what Haddock would say on the witness stand was not constitutionally deficient performance); United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 777 F.2d 454, 458 (9th Cir.1985) (“The timing of an opening statement, and even the decision whether to make one at all, is ordinarily a mere matter of trial tactics and in such eases will not constitute the incompetence basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); United States v. Salovitz, 701 F.2d 17, 20-21 (2d Cir.1983) (noting that trial counsel’s decision to waive an opening statement is often a matter of trial strategy “and ordinarily will not form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has held that under certain egregious circumstances, however, a defendant can assert a ‘per se’ ineffective assistance claim in which the court will presume prejudice. Those circumstances include the actual or constructive denial of assistance “when counsel was either totally absent or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.