Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 F.3d 175 - United States v. Moore

United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

29 F.3d 175 · 1994

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
March 2018
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States of America v. Akin Akinkoye a (1999), United States v. Bolden (2003)

43 federal appellate · 3 district ·

270199420002010decided

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

Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · United States v. Daughtrey · United States v. Innamorati · United States v. Hill · United States v. Irvin

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “' the defendant abused a position of public or private trust.' " Id . at 178 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 ); see id . ("[s]uch defendant-specific language”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`the question of whether an individual occupies a position of trust should be addressed from the perspective of the victim.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “These roles in the offense provisions were designed to permit sentencing judges to make individualized distinctions among defendants engaged in a criminal enterprise. By their very nature, [they] cannot be based upon the actions of co-conspirators; for example, a defendant who was not the organizer of a criminal activity could not receive a role enhancement merely because it was reasonably foreseeable that a co-conspirator would organize a criminal scheme.”
    1 later decision 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.