Ford v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 1035 · 2002
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on William O'sullivan v. Darren Boerckel · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett · United States v. Steele
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“judgment or claim” in § 2244(d)(2), that an application for state post-conviction or other collateral review would toll”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he federal habeas exhaustion doctrine is not meant to apply to purely state law or state constitutional claims, such as technical defects in indictments. This rule is sound for another reason, as well. Federal courts do not necessarily know the intricacies of state law and the possi ble claims the latter may make available to a petitioner; it would, therefore, be inappropriate for a federal court to determine whether a petitioner’s non-federal remedies have been exhausted. By the same token, the federal habeas tolling provision should not be invoked except when a federal claim remains unex-hausted in state court. Tolling is the complement of the exhaustion requirement. We hold, therefore, that a state petition for post-conviction or other collateral review must present a federally cognizable claim for it to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to [§ 2244(d)(2) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cowherd v. Million“[a] state collateral proceeding based solely on state-law issues may avoid the need for federal relief, and a tolling rule permits prisoners to pursue such theories in state court without jeopardizing their ability to raise the federal constitutional issues later in federal court, if that proves to be necessary.” Ford, 296 F.3d at 1040 . The Ford petitioner challenged his sentence as illegal and unconstitutional under state law and this language contemplates that a”
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.