Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 417 U.S. 600 - Ross v. Moffitt

Ross v. Moffitt’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

2,471
cited by 2,471 later decisions
83
cited 83 times by the Supreme Court
48
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

538 federal appellate · 109 district · 1,199 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,471 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Penson v. Ohio (1988), Coleman v. Thompson (1991)

538 federal appellate · 109 district · 1,199 state decisions — followed in 48 states

6320197419801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedMoffitt v. Ross (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Douglas v. People of State of California

Cited together with Douglas v. People of State of California · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Strickland v. Washington · Evitts v. Lucey · Pennsylvania v. Finley

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 2,471 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system.”
    66 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The duty of the State under our cases is not to duplicate the legal arsenal that may be privately retained by a criminal defendant in a continuing effort to reverse his conviction, but only to assure the indigent defendant an adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly in the context of the State's appellate process.”
    51 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “disparity in treatment by a State between classes of individuals whose situations are arguably indistinguishable.”
    25 later decisions 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.