United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
486 F.2d 1139 · 1973
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 6 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Marshall v. United States (1974), United States v. Barker (1975)
53 federal appellate · 6 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 18 U.S.C. § 4251 · 18 U.S.C. § 5010 · 21 U.S.C. § 1001 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morissette v. United States · Williams v. People of State of New York · Linkletter v. Walker · Robinson v. State of California · Crowell v. Benson
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the interpretation that Robinson held that it was not criminal to give in to the irresistible compulsion of a 'disease[ ]' weaves in and out of the Powell opinions, but there [was] definitely no Supreme Court holding to this effect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he legal conception of criminal capacity cannot be limited to those of unusual endowment or even average powers. A few may be recognized as so far from normal as to be entirely beyond the reach of criminal justice, but in general the criminal law is a means of social control that must be potentially capable of reaching the vast bulk of the population. Criminal responsibility is a concept that not only extends to the bulk of those below the median line of responsibility, but specifically extends to those who have a realistic problem of substantial impairment and lack of capacity. ... The criminal law cannot "vary legal norms with the individual’s capacity to meet the standards they prescribe, absent a disability that is both gross and verifiable, such as the mental disease or defect that may establish irresponsibility. The most that it is feasible to do with lesser disabilities is to accord them proper weight in sentencing.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a remand following a sentence when there is a possibility that there was a failure to give NARA dispositions full consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.