Moore v. Czerniak’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.3d 1092 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Williams v. Taylor
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or “(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Premo v. Moore · Premo v. Moore““[T]o make an example and put some scare into Mr. Rogers . . . , they had blind-folded him [and] duct taped him and put him in the trunk of the car and took him out to a place that’s a little remote .... [T]heir intent was to leave him there and make him walk home .... “[Moore] had taken the revolver from Lonnie and at the time he had taken it, Mr. Rogers had slipped backwards on the mud and the gun discharged.” App. 157-158.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Premo v. Moore · Premo v. Moore““Mr. Moore and I discussed the possibility of filing a Motion to Suppress and concluded that it would be unavailing, because... he had previously made a full confession to his brother and to [his accomplice’s girlfriend], either one of whom could have been called as a witness at any time to repeat his confession in full detail.” Jordan Affidavit (Feb. 26,1999), App. to Pet. for Cert. 70, ¶4.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Premo v. Moore · Premo v. Moore
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.