Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 F.2d 600 - Moore v. Mitchell

Moore v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

30 F.2d 600 · 1929

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), United States v. First National City Bank (1965)

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

16019291930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relationships

Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance · Blodgett v. Silberman · Meriwether v. Garrett · The Antelope the Vice-Consuls of Spain and Portugal

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

  1. “[A] court will not recognize those [liabilities] arising in a foreign state, if they run counter to the ‘settled public policy’ of its own. Thus a scrutiny of the liability is necessarily always in reserve, and the possibility that it will be found not to accord with the policy of the domestic state.... To pass upon the provisions for the public order of another state is, or at any rate should be, beyond the powers of a court; it involves the relations between the states themselves, with which courts are incompetent to deal, and which are intrusted to other authorities. It may commit the domestic state to a position which would seriously embarrass its neighbor. Revenue laws fall within the same reasoning; they affect a state in matters as vital to its existence as its criminal laws. No court ought to undertake an inquiry which it cannot prosecute without determining whether those laws are consonant with its own notions of what is proper.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “applie[d] not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all suits in favor of the State for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violations of its statutes for the protection of its revenue, or other municipal laws, and to all judgments for such penalties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “liability arising under the law of a foreign state will be recognized by the courts of another”
    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.