Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 N.W.2d 579 - State v. Moore

State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
July 1984
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1984

8 state decisions

50196019701980decided

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 People v. Newland · Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · People v. Isby · Friedman v. United States

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

  1. ““ ‘ “ ‘Where the circumstances are such as to reasonably justify an inference of guilt, as found by the jury, the fact that an inference of innocence might likewise be reasonably drawn therefrom does not present a question of law for review by an appellate court any more than does a verdict based upon direct conflicting evidence. In neither case will the verdict be disturbed.’ ” ’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The trial court in a criminal case is clothed with a wide discretion in passing on a motion for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence and his determination will not be disturbed unless there appears to have been an abuse of that discretion. “Where there is substantial evidence to support the verdict it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to refuse to grant a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “* * * But if the evidence is of such an exceptionally prejudicial character that its withdrawal from the consideration of the jury cannot remove the harmful effect caused by its admission, a new trial will be granted. * * * (Emphasis ours.) Dolan v. United States, 8 Cir., 218 F.2d 454, 460 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.