Moorehead v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.2d 52 · 1952
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. United States Coin & Currency (1971), United States v. Bradley (1972)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
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 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 18 U.S.C. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992)
Relies on United States v. Reisinger · Voorhees v. Cox
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture or liability”.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Petitioner contends that under 18 U.S.C. § 4210 (b) his custody is illegal in that he is entitled to receive credit toward completion of his sentence for the time upon which he was on parole. If such time is added to the time already served in custody, the lawful jurisdiction of the respondents over him has terminated and petitioner’s immediate release is mandatory. “Section 4210(b), which became effective on May 14 of this year states in part: ‘Except as otherwise provided in this section, the jurisdiction of the Commission over the parolee shall terminate no later than the date of the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced . . .’ Two exceptions are provided to the statute which are not applicable here. “Petitioner contends that as a result of the passage of this section, the jurisdiction of the respondent has already ended and that therefore, this writ should issue. Petitioner bases his calculation upon having served four years in prison and having accumulated over three years of ‘good time’ while on parole. The issue thus presented does not involve an evaluation of petitioner’s calculations, but upon a consideration of the retroactivity of this new section. “ Section 4210(b) clearly indicates and intends that a prisoner is to receive credit for that time which he has served on parole. The section previous to this, 18 U.S.C. § 4205 (which was repealed at the time § 4210(b) came into effect) stated that: ‘The unexpired term of imprisonment of any”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The violations of the terms of a conditional parole bring into being a new offense for which, upon being found guilty in a proper proceeding, one may be punished. This is a new punishment not a part of the original punishment and consists of a forfeiture of good time.”
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.