Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 F.3d 936 - Moore v. Knight

Moore v. Knight’s Empirical Analysis

368 F.3d 936 · 2004

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Holland v. Florida (2010), Holland v. Florida (2010)

25 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

190200420102020decided

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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Illinois v. Allen · Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Remmer v. United States · Rushen v. Spain

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of— (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; [or] (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t is ridiculous to base such a determination [of whether or not there was prejudice] on the predictable lack of evidence so many years after the fact.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a due diligence inquiry should take into account that prisoners are limited by their physical confinement.”
    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.