Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 F.3d 689 - Moore v. Carlton

Moore v. Carlton’s Empirical Analysis

74 F.3d 689 · 1996

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited

32 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Miller v. Francis (2001), Williams v. Bagley (2004)

32 federal appellate ·

250199620002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Jackson v. Virginia · Anders v. California · Wainwright v. Sykes · United States v. Frady

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

  1. “[petitioner's] trial attorney communicated with his appellate attorney, the absence of the jury instruction transcripts is not a per se denial of his due process rights to a fair appeal. Instead, in order to demonstrate denial of a fair appeal, petitioner must show prejudice resulting from the missing transcripts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t seems clear that failing to file a significant portion of the record on direct appeal constitutes deficient performance, when the sufficiency of the evidence is an issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “not even a modicum of evidence here that the incomplete transcript resulted in actual prejudice.”
    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.