Ex Parte Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2017
23 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 50 U.S.C. § 3913 (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 50 U.S.C. App. § 101 · 50 U.S.C. App. § 201
Relies on Ex Parte Wright · Briggs v. Commonwealth · Jones v. City of Opelika
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The 1942 Act was approved October 6, 1942; the conditional judgment here was rendered September 21, 1942. “The status at that time was as discussed in Briggs v. Commonwealth, 185 Ky. 340 , 214 S. W. 975 , 8 A. L. R. 363. It was there recognized as sound that if the defendant in a criminal case is drawn into the military service under the Selective Service Act, and was thereby prevented from appearing' •to answer the criminal charge, a final judgment of forfeiture should not be rendered against the sureties on his bail bond, but that if he was located at a place accessible to the trial, and would have been granted a pass on request to enable him to attend the trial, the final judgment of forfeiture should not be set aside. “The Act of 1942 seems to embody that principle in express language. “In any event military service must prevent the bondsmen from enforcing the attendance of the principal! This does not follow from the mere circumstance of military service. The service should prevent his attendance on the trial under that act, as well as before it. * * * He [trial judge] evidently did not find that defendant could not have appeared to answer the charge on account of military service. * * * But if he is in the service, and a pass is refused by the military authorities, or he is out of the country or so situated otherwise by reason of such service that he cannot reach the trial, the sureties may be in position to claim an inability to produce him to stand the trial. ’ ’ — A”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Benedict“This procedure [for the forfeiture of a bail bond] is in the nature of a civil action distinct from the original case, which latter is usually criminal. It leads to a final civil judgment, from which an appeal lies to this court, as in other civil cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.