Morrison v. Mahoney’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.3d 1042 · 2005
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 Anthony Lewis Whalem/hunt v. Rchard Early, Warden · Franklin v. Johnson · Batchelor v. Cupp · Martinez-Villareal v. Lewis · Samson Dubria v. Ga Smith
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.
“The requirement in Rule 8(c) that a party set forth the affirmative defenses listed in that rule applies only to responsive "pleadings,” not to motions. A motion to dismiss is not a pleading. Unless a court has ordered otherwise, separate motions to dismiss may be filed asserting different affirmative defenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the extent they are not inconsistent with”
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.