MOORE

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• WRH Mortg., Inc. v. Butler, 684 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
  …at “substantive time limits, as opposed to procedural statute of limitations, are binding on the federal government.” Id. at 285. In so ruling, the Olson court cited U.S. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 460 F. 2d 17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 979, 93 S.Ct. 308, 34 L.Ed.2d 243 (1972). This citation is misleading however because Hartford merely held that a state statute creating a condition precedent to suit is binding on the federal government. It also held that the supremacy clause does no…
• Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (U.S. 1977)
  …tioner’s argument that the victim’s identification testimony should have been excluded, on the ground that the prosecution had shown an “independent basis” for the identification. Id., at 86, 281 N. E. 2d, at 298. After this Court denied certiorari, 409 U. S. 979 (1972), petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Federal District Court. He contended that admission of the identification testimony at trial violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Relying on the transcript from the state proc…
• United States v. State OF Cal., 655 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1980)
  …or as a condition precedent to liability applies to suits by the United States even if there is an otherwise applicable federal statute of limitations. United States v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 460 F. 2d 17, 19 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 979, 93 S.Ct. 308, 34 L.Ed.2d 243 (1972). Compliance with California’s claim filing statute is just such an element of a cause of action against the state. See Willis v. Reddin, 418 F. 2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1969); Ridley v. City of San Francisco, 272…