George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 373 · 1933
Citation profile
251 federal appellate · 62 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 671 later decisions (83 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board (1938), Hamling v. United States (1974)
251 federal appellate · 62 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 18 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
reviewedGeorge Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Brown v. Maryland · United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co. · American Surety Co. v. Baldwin · United States v. Jin Fuey Moy
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 671 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“avoidance of a difficulty will not be pressed to the point of disingenuous evasion.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A suit against a collector who has collected a tax in the fulfillment of a ministerial duty is to-day an anomalous relic of bygone modes of thought. He is not suable as a trespasser, nor is he to pay out of his own purse. He is. made a defendant because the statute has said for many years that such a remedy shall exist, though he has been guilty of no wrong, and though another is to pay. Philadelphia v. Collector, supra, 5 Wall. 720 , at page 731, 18 L.Ed. 614 . There may have been utility in such procedural devices in days when the government was not suable as freely as now. * * * They have little utility today, at all events where the complaint against the officer shows upon its face that in the process of collecting he was acting in the line of duty, and that in the line of duty he has turned the money over. In such circumstances his presence as a defendant is merely a remedial expedient for bringing the government into court.””
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.