United States v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
591 F.2d 428 · 1979
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Delgado (2012), 124 Wis. 2d 681 - State v. Wyss (1985)
69 federal appellate · 16 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. § 1201 (International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Opper v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · United States v. Maze · Kann v. United States
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essence of a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime, [citations omitted]. The agreement need not be formal or express. Indeed, since conspiracy is seldom susceptible of proof by direct evidence, it may be properly adduced from the conduct of the alleged conspirators and the attending circumstances, [citations omitted]. However, mere association with an individual engaged in an illegal enterprise does not make a person a conspirator, [citations omitted]. Nor is mere knowledge, approval or acquiescence in the object of an alleged conspiracy sufficient to render an individual a part of a conspiracy. There must exist some element of affirmative cooperation or agreement to cooperate in the object of the conspiracy, [citations omitted].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the FBI agent in charge of the monitoring admitted [through testimony] that he failed to check the recording equipment to ascertain its capacity of picking up sound.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the very fact of the existence of the tape recordings establishes that the recording devices were capable of picking up sounds,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.