Thomas Moore v. The People of the State of Illinois’s Empirical Analysis
55 U.S. 13 · 1852
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 36 district · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 305 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Dixon (1993), Briscoe v. W (1983)
52 federal appellate · 36 district · 118 state decisions — followed in 37 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
Relies on Edward Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Malinda Fox v. The State of Ohio · Houston v. Moore · The United States v. Peter Marigold
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 305 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws of both.””
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a great defect in our system. For the punishment under the State law would be no bar to a prosecution under the law of Congress. And to punish the same act by the two governments would violate, not only the common principles of humanity, but would be repugnant to the nature of both governments. If there were a concurrent power in both governments to punish the same act, a conviction under the laws of either could be pleaded in bar to a prosecution by the other. But it is not pretended that the conviction of Malinda Fox, under the State law, is a bar to a prosecution under the law of Congress. Each government, in prescribing the punishment, was governed by the nature of the offense, and must be supposed to have acted in reference to its own sovereignty. There is no principle better established by the common law, none more fully recognized in the federal and State constitutions, than that an individual shall not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. This, it is true, applies to the respective governments; but its spirit applies with equal force against a double punishment, for the same act, by a State and a federal government.”
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.