State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. O'Neill (1986), State v. Hatch (1984)
32 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 42 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 606 (§ 406 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hughes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · Grenz v. Werre · State Ex Rel. Minot v. Gronna · State v. Haakenson · State v. Reaves
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"12.1-23-02. Theft of property. — A person is guilty of theft if he: “1. Knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, the property of another with intent to deprive the owner thereof; “2. Knowingly obtains the property of another by deception or by threat with intent to deprive the owner thereof, or intentionally deprives another of his property by deception or by threat; or “3. Knowingly receives, retains, or disposes of property of another which has been stolen, with intent to deprive the owner thereof.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Christian · State v. Hatch““For an effective appeal on an issue, the issue must first have been ‘appropriately-raised in the trial court so that the trial court could have ruled upon it ... otherwise, it would behoove a defendant to sit by and invite error in the hope that if he did not prevail the first time, he would prevail upon appellate review of invited error.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose and concept of self-authentication rests upon the proposition that documents in which the risk of falsification is slight should be tendered and accepted as evidence of what they purport to be without the prior testimony of an authenticating witness. This “presumptive authenticity” in no way precludes any evidentiary challenge of the genuineness of the offered writing, but simply serves to obviate the necessity of preliminary authentication by the proponent to secure admission.”
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.