United States v. Moses’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The undisputed facts show the appellant acting solely at the behest of the prospective buyers and in their interest. At the buyers' request she did two things to facilitate their purchase. She introduced them to the seller and she vouched for their bona fides, if purchasers of contraband drugs can be so characterized. That is all that was proved. There was nothing to show that she was associated in any way with the enterprise of the seller or that she had any personal or financial interest in bringing trade to him. Although appellant's conduct was prefatory to the sale, it was not collaborative with the seller. For this reason the conviction cannot be sustained. ". . . "We are satisfied that the absence of any showing of collaboration or association between appellant and Cooper prevents her from being convicted under Section 2 of Title 18 as a guilty participant in Cooper's sale of narcotics."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. United States · 236 Pa. Super. 590 - Commonwealth v. Flowers

2. ““Morei v. United States, 6 Cir., 1942, 127 F.2d 827 , a narcotics case, is also instructive. There the court treated as decisive the lack of any community of scheme between the defendant and the principal wrongdoers. Again, it has been a general rule under the prohibition acts, national and state, that one who has acted without interest in the selling cannot be convicted as a seller even though his conduct may in fact have facilitated an illegal sale. See cases collected in Notes, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 268 and 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 334. Moreover, emphasis on those facts which show collaboration and association is characteristic of judicial analysis in those cases where convictions of aiding and abetting have been sustained, [citations] “We are satisfied that the absence of any showing of collaboration or association between appellant and Cooper prevents her from being convicted under Section 2 of Title 18 as a guilty participant in Cooper’s sale of narcotics.” 220 F.2d at 169.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. State · United States v. Nolan

3. ““ * * * In cases like the present one the admitted fact that public officers proposed and solicited the criminal act is not even offset by an indication that the person solicited had recently engaged in similar criminality. While other facts may prevent such a situation from amounting to entrapment as a matter of law, cases like this will almost always present a substantial question of fact on the entrapment issue which must be considered and resolved like any other question of fact.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Stocker · United States v. Klosterman