Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 F.2d 102 - United States v. Moore

United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

166 F.2d 102 · 1948

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 1994
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1994 · most notably United State v. Morgan (1954), United States v. Paglia (1951)

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

240194819501960197019801990decided

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 United States v. Mayer · Holiday v. Johnston · United States v. Mayer · Gayes v. State of New York · Stephenson v. State

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

  1. ““We take it that there can be no question but that when it is sought to set aside or vacate a judgment, whether by complaint in equity or by way of coram nobis or its modern equivalent, a motion to vacate, such as we have before us, no relief can be granted unless it appears that a retrial will result in a judgment different from the one sought to be vacated and that, in the absence of such a showing, the judgment will not be set aside. The reason for this rule is that if defendant has no valid defense, so that a second trial must result in an identical judgment, then no actual injury has occurred and it would be a vain and idle thing to set aside the judgment already entered. As a corollary, it is not sufficient to aver merely, in general terms, that defendant has a good and meritorious defense but the nature of that defense, the facts constituting it, must be set forth in such detail as to enable the court to determine whether it is meritorious and sufficient.””
    1 later decision 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.