Moore v. Hartman’s Empirical Analysis
388 F.3d 871 · 2004
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Hartman v. Moore (2006), Moore v. Hartman (2009)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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.
“Upon consideration of the motion of defendants, United States and Michael Hartman, et al., for summary judgment and the response thereto, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. There are material facts in dispute. The most significant are the facts surrounding the presentation of evidence to the grand jury and the disclosure of grand jury testimony to a key prosecution witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Hartman“consume significant resources” — considerations that, under normal circumstances, might weigh against prosecuting a marginal case. Id. at 884-85 . 5 . The Johnson Court was primarily concerned that review of the district court's factual determinations on summary judgment would require the appellate court”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Hartman“Considering all th[e] evidence together and interpreting it in Moore's favor, we cannot conclude that the postal inspectors would have prosecuted Moore had they not been irked by his aggressive lobbying against Zip + 4.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Hartman
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.