Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 U.S. 25 - Moore v. Arizona

Moore v. Arizona’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

1,150
cited by 1,150 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
45
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

238 federal appellate · 51 district · 770 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,150 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Doggett v. United States (1992), United States v. MacDonald (1982)

238 federal appellate · 51 district · 770 state decisions — followed in 45 states

4200197319801990200020102020decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida

Cited together with Barker v. Wingo · United States v. Marion · Klopfer v. State of North Carolina · Smith v. Hooey · Strunk v. United States

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 1,150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “expressly rejected the notion that an affirmative demonstration of prejudice was necessary to prove a denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.”
    61 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because what has been forgotten can rarely be shown.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““* * * no court should overlook the possible impact pending charges might have on his prospects for parole and meaningful rehabilitation.” Moore v. Arizona, 414 U. S. at 27 , 94 S.Ct. at 190 , 38 L.Ed.2d at 186 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.