O'Brien v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
395 F.3d 499 · 2005
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023
5 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Nordic Village, Inc. · O'NEAL v. McAninch
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, in enacting the EAJA and authorizing that an award of attorneys fees may be assessed against the United States in “civil actions,” Congress did not expressly include habeas actions. More relevant to the analysis here, using the term “civil action” did not unequivocally or unambiguously include habeas actions, and perhaps for good reason. The EAJA’s policy of leveling the playing field in civil litigation against the United States, particularly when the United States has taken a position that is not substantially justified, does not clearly apply to habeas litigation, which is pursued freely by petitioners without the need for the EAJA’s incentives.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. United States v. Cox“It is, of course, true that habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as `civil.' ... But the label is gross and inexact. Essentially, the proceeding is unique. Habeas corpus practice in the federal courts has conformed with civil practice only in a general sense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“civil action procedural sequencing-from a motion to dismiss, to an answer, to discovery, and ultimately to trial-[i]s not applicable in habeas cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Banister v. Davis
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.