Moore v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 771 · 2002
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Coleman v. Thompson · Harris v. Reed · Ylst v. Nunnemaker · 153 Ill. 2d 264 - People v. Flores
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the decision of the last state court to which the petitioner presented his federal claims fairly appears to rest primarily on the resolution of those claims, or to be interwoven with those claims, and does not clearly and expressly rely on the procedural default, we may conclude that there is no independent and adequate state ground and proceed to hear the federal claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] federal court will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of the state court rests on as state procedural ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Evans“`federal habeas when a state court [has] declined to address a prisoner's federal claims because the prisoner [has] failed to meet a state procedural requirement.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Page v. Frank
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.