Moses Haas v. William Henkel’s Empirical Analysis
216 U.S. 462 · 1910
Citation profile
386 federal appellate · 60 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 713 later decisions (78 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably McNally v. United States (1987), Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977)
386 federal appellate · 60 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on United States v. Cruikshank · Williamson v. United States · Armour Packing Company v. United States · Pettibone v. United States · United States v. Hess
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 713 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the bribee is an officer of the United States, there is no necessity to show that he was acting in an official capacity, in order to make out a case under 18 U.S.C.A. § 201 . We hold, therefore, that since Sergeant Nichols was an officer of the United States, it was not necessary to allege or prove that he was acting in an official function. To hold otherwise would be to make the words ‘officer or employee’ completely nugatory. It is sufficient if it be shown that the bribee was an officer of the United States and that the bribe was given ‘with intent to influence him to commit or aid in committing * * * any fraud, on the United States’ or with intent ‘to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty.’ * * * “If Congress had intended that an officer or employee must be acting in an official function to violate § 201, why were the words ‘officer or employee’ inserted in the statute ? The term ‘person acting for the United States in an official function’ is broad enough to include officers and employees. We do not believe that Congress so intended, but rather a distinction was drawn between officers or employees on the one hand, and persons acting for the United States in an official function on the other. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, if indicted in two or more districts, there must be an election as to where the defendant shall be tried. Primarily, this is the right and duty of the Attorney General, or those acting by his authority. * * * “But if the fact be that the offense charged in both sets of indictments is identical, and that the locus of the conspiracy is laid in one set as in one district and in tbe other as in a different district, it is still for the government to determine in which of the two districts it will bring the accused to trial, and of the commissioner to determine whether a prima facie ease has been shown that the accused had,probably committed an offense in the District of Columbia, which was indictable and triable there.””
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.