Moore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 656 · 1991
Citation profile
140 federal appellate · 31 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (1996), Frank v. Johnson (1992)
140 federal appellate · 31 district · 1 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Johnson v. Zerbst · Hill v. Lockhart · Thomas v. Arn · Cuyler v. Sullivan
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 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“however, that '[t]he waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice so dictate.'”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dunford v. McClaflin · Milam“however, that '[t]he waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice so dictate.' " One Parcel , 73 F.3d at 1060 (quoting Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656 , 659 (10th Cir. 1991) ("We join those circuits that have declined to apply the waiver rule to a pro se litigant's failure to object when the magistrate's order does not apprise the pro se litigant of the consequences of a failure to object to findings and recommendations.”
7 later decisions 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.