Moses v. Joyner’s Empirical Analysis
815 F.3d 163 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Teague v. Lane · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Ackermann v. United States · Gonzalez v. Crosby · Christopher Artuz Superintendent Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A 'change in decisional law after entry of judgment does not constitute extraordinary circumstances and is not alone grounds for relief from a final judgment.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger v. Davis“We too have held that 'a change in decisional law subsequent to a final judgment provides no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crutsinger v. Davis
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.