Mortensen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

379 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 state decisions

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

1. ““The penalties of Section 2 of the Act are directed at those who knowingly transport in interstate commerce ‘any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose, or with the intent and purpose to induce, entice, or compel such woman or girl to become a prostitute or to give herself up to debauchery, or to engage in any other immoral practice.’ The statute thus aims to penalize only those who use interstate commerce with a view toward accomplishing the unlawful purposes. To constitute a violation of the Act, it is essential that the interstate transportation have for its object or be the means of effecting or facilitating the proscribed activities. Hansen v. Haff, 291 U.S. 559 , 563, 54 S.Ct. 494 , 495, 78 L.Ed. 968 [971], An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement. And the transportation must be designed to bring about such result. Without that necessary intention and motivation, immoral conduct during or following the journey is insufficient to subject the transporter to the penalties of the Act.” Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 , 373-374, 64 S.Ct. 1037 , 1040, 88 L.Ed. 1331 (1944).”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Beach · Cleveland v. United States

2. ““But we have never hesitated to examine a record to determine whether there was any competent and substantial evidence fairly tending to support the verdict. Cf. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 , 619 [ 40 S.Ct. 17 , 63 L.Ed. 1173 ]. Our examination of the record in this case convinces us that there was a complete lack of relevant evidence from which the jury could properly find or infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that petitioners transported the girls in interstate commerce ‘for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery’ within the meaning of the Mann Act [18 U.S. C.A. § 2421 et seq.].” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Riggs v. United States

3. ““The fact that the two girls actually resumed their immoral practices after their return to Grand Island does not, standing alone, operate to inject a retroactive illegal purpose into the return trip to Grand Island. Nor does it justify an arbitrary splitting of the round trip into two parts so as to permit an inference that the purpose of the drive to Salt Lake City was innocent while the purpose of the homeward journey to Grand Island was criminal. The return journey under the circumstances of this case cannot be considered apart from its integral relation with the innocent round trip as a whole. There is no evidence of any change in the purpose of the trip-during its course. If innocent when it began it remained so until it ended.” 322 U.S. at 375 , 64 S.Ct. at 1041 , 88 L.Ed. 1331 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nelms v. United States · Dunn v. United States