Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 593 · 1926
Citation profile
438 federal appellate · 211 district · 192 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,578 later decisions (79 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America (1994), Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission (1966)
438 federal appellate · 211 district · 192 state decisions — followed in 27 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBurt v. Smith (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Swift Company v. United States · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n
Cited together with United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc. · Hurn v. Oursler · Conley v. Gibson · United Artists Corporation v. Masterpiece Productions, Inc., and Robert S. Benjamin, Arthur B. Krim, Seymour M. Peyser
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 1,578 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Transaction' is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship.”
73 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“arising out of the transaction which is the subject matter of the suit”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The answer must state in short and simple form any counterclaim arising out of the transaction which is the subject-matter of the suit, and may, without cross- bill, set up any set-off or counterclaim against the plaintiff which might be the subject of an independent suit in equity against him, and such set-off or counterclaim, so set up, shall have the same effect as a cross-suit, so as to enable the court to pronounce a final decree in the same suit on both the original and the cross-claims. “When in the determination of a counterclaim complete relief cannot be granted without the presence of parties other than those to the bill, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants if they are subject to its jurisdiction.””
2 later decisions 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.