Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 716 F.2d 1511 - Moore v. Balkcom

Moore v. Balkcom’s Empirical Analysis

716 F.2d 1511 · 1983

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
August 2013
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Leatherwood v. Mississippi (1984), Daniel Loconte v. Richard Dugger, Robert A. Butterworth (1988)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

4801983199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Foman v. Davis · Gregg v. Georgia · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “to see if the state court's findings of fact, their conclusion based on a review of similar cases, was supported by the”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “individualized sentencing and objective standards.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The district court found that petitioner had been represented by counsel at all times. Counsel explicitly referred to this issue in the original habeas petition filed approximately two years before the proposed amendment. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the proposed amendment in this case where counsel apparently considered and rejected the proposed arguments two years before filing the proposed amendment. 16”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.