Houston v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 17 district · 79 state decisions

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

1. ““I am altogether incapable of comprehending how two distinct wills can, at the same time, be exercised in relation to the same subject, to be effectual, and, at the same time, compatible with each other. If they correspond in every respect, then the latter is idle and inoperative; if they differ, they must, in the nature of things, oppose each other, so far as they do differ. If the one imposes a certain punishment, for a certain offense, the presumption is that this wa3 deemed sufficient, and, under all circumstances, the only proper one. If the other Legislature impose a different punishment, in kind or degree, I am at a loss to conceive how they can both consist harmoniously together. “I admit that a legislative body may, by different laws, impose upon the same person, for the same offense, different and cumulative punishments; but then it is the will of the same body to do so, and the second, equally with the first, law, is the will of that body; there is therefore, and can be, no opposition of wills. But the case is altogether different where the laws flow from the will of distinct co-ordinate bodies.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Beaumont & G. N. R. R.

2. “if the jurisdiction of the two Courts be concurrent, the sentence of either Court, either of conviction of acquittal, might be pleaded in bar of the prosecution of the other, as much so as the judgment of a State Court, in a civil case of concurrent jurisdiction, may be pleaded in bar of an action for the same cause, instituted in a Circuit Court of the United States.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 347 F. Supp. 3d 1011 - United States v. Williams · 221 F. Supp. 2d 696 - United States v. Angleton

3. ““The Constitution of the United States (article 1, section 8) confers on Congress the power ‘to raise and support armies, to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.’ Under this grant of power to raise and support armies and call out the militia, there can be no doubt that Congress has power to make and authorize such orders and regulations as may be necessary to prevent those who are liable by law to military service from evading that duty.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Mott · United States v. Sugar