Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Barnett v. State (2003), Sweet v. Delo (1997)
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
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
Relies on Luleff v. State · Sanders v. State · McDaris v. State · State Ex Rel. Public Defender Commission v. Bonacker
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“post-conviction counsel takes no action on a movant’s behalf with respect to filing an amended motion and as such the record shows that the movant is deprived of a meaningful review of his claims; or (2) when post-conviction counsel is aware of the need to file an amended post-conviction relief motion and fails to do so in a timely manner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Riley v. State · Volner v. State“[T]he trial court should ... inquire not only of postconviction counsel,- but ensure that movant is- informed of counsel’s response and given an opportunity to reply. The method of making this inquiry may be as formal or informal as the motion court deems necessary to resolve the question of abandonment by counsel, including, but not limited to, a written , response, and opportunity to reply, a telephone conference call, or a hearing. However, a sufficient record must be made to demonstrate on appeal that the motion court’s determination on the abandonment issue is not clearly erroneous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rule 24.035(e) requires counsel to ascertain whether sufficient facts supporting the grounds are asserted in the motion and whether the movant has included all grounds known to him as a basis for attacking the judgment and sentence. In [this] case, the statement filed by post-conviction counsel shows on its face that counsel took neither of the two actions required by Rule 24.035(e). On its face, counsel’s statement is thus tantamount to a confession of abandonment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Riley v. State
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.