Moore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
375 F.2d 877 · 1967
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 1997 · most notably United States v. Dennis (1980), United States v. Schroeder (1970)
45 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 472
Relies on Scalza v. United States · Linkletter v. Walker · Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · Agnew v. United States · United States v. Calderon
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is settled law that a defendant who offers evidence after the denial of a motion for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case in chief waives any claim as to the sufficiency of that case considered alone. United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160 , 164 n. 1, 75 S.Ct. 186 , 99 L.Ed. 202 (1954); but see The Motion for Acquittal: a Neglected Safeguard, 70 Yale L.J. 1151 (1961). We have applied this rule when, as here, the judge ignored the command of F.R.Crim.P. 29(a) and reserved decision on such a motion, see United States v. Goldstein, 168 F.2d 666 , 669-670 (2 Cir. 1948), and the Supreme Court’s approving citation of the Gold-stein decision in Calderon, supra, indicates that it' perceives no basis for distinguishing between the two situations, at least in the absence of a demand for a ruling on the motion and explicit refusal by the judge to obey the mandate of the Rule. Quite apart from this, we would consider the Government’s case in chief sufficient to support Rosengarten’s conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This motion was made orally and counsel concluded by saying “and the Defendant requests permission to submit a written motion to the same effect at the close of all of this case.” The court responded as follows: “Permission is so granted to submit a written motion. Ruling will be reserved on this motion.” Defendant did not press for a ruling at the time the motion was made, and from the language used, the court would have been warranted in interpreting the statement as defense counsel’s intention to immediately offer evidence on defendant’s behalf.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if at the time the motion was made the Government had produced sufficient evidence to justify submission of the case”
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.