Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co.’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.2d 467 · 1950
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey (1988), Lyles v. United States (1957)
63 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1732 · 30 U.S.C. § 3 · 30 U.S.C. § 5
Relies on Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co. · Moran v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. · McGrath v. Pennsylvania Sugar Co. · Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc.
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In any court of the United States and in any court established by Act of Congress, any writing or record, whether in the form of an entry in a book or otherwise, made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be admissible as evidence of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event, if made in regular course of any business, and if it was the regular course of such business to make such memorandum or record at the time of such act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. "All other circumstances of the making of such writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, may be shown to affect its weight, but such circumstances shall not affect its admissibility. "The term `business,' as used in this section, includes business, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * It is frequently said in such situations that the party calling the witness is bound by his testimony. That rule has been assailed by Wigmore as a ‘primitive notion’’ which ‘no longer finds defenders.’ But we need not in this case either affirm or repudiate that rule. Here, Jackson was called in the first place as .an adverse witness under Rule 43(b), which expressly provides that such an adverse witness may be contradicted and impeached. Rule 43(b), we think, is utterly inconsistent with any notion about being bound by his testimony. It seems to us that any statement to the effect that a party is bound by the testimony of a witness whom he is free to contradict and impeach is inherently anomalous.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The report is no less admissible because it contains conclusions of experts which are based upon hearsay evidence as well as upon observation. These circumstances, by virtue of express statutory provisions, go to weight rather than to admissibility. Moreover, this Court has several times held that hospital records are admissible under the statute, and certainly medical diagnosis is no less a matter of opinion based upon observation and perhaps hearsay than this report of the Bureau’s investigation.” 24”
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.