Moore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
865 F.2d 149 · 1989
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably United States v. Saks (1992), United States v. Bucey (1989)
25 federal appellate · 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Rose v. Clark · Zant v. Stephens · McNally v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A scheme means some plan or course of action intended to deprive another of something of value including intangible rights (emphasis supplied). sje * * * * * The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago and the citizens of the Chicago Metropolitan area have an intangible right to the loyal, faithful and honest services of public employees and an intangible right to have the business of the Metropolitan Sanitary District conducted honestly, fairly and impartially, free from corruption, collusion, partiality, dishonesty, conflict of interest and fraud, and in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois and the rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Sanitary District. A scheme to defraud the Metropolitan Sanitary District or the citizens of the Chicago Metropolitan area of these intangible rights may constitute a scheme to defraud within the meaning of the mail fraud statute. (App. 2 p. 7.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The phrase “intent to defraud” means that the acts charged were done knowingly with the intent to deceive, either to cause the loss of intangible rights, or to cause a financial gain to the defendant. (2) Evidence has been introduced regarding the relevant law of bribery in Illinois. You may consider this evidence in connection with ascertaining whether the defendant participated in a scheme to defraud Cook County and its citizens of their right to have their business conducted honestly, fairly, impartially, free from corruption, collusion, partiality, dishonesty, conflict of interest and in accord with the laws of the State of Illinois. (3) The Circuit Court of Cook County, the citizens of Cook County and the public officials and public employees of Cook County have an intangible right to have the Cook County judicial system operated honestly and fairly, free from corruption, dishonesty, bribery and fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since it is obvious that the MSD would lose money from the scheme portrayed in paragraphs 3-11 of the indictment and later consummated, the case differs from Magnuson ..., where no money or property was lost. Instead Moore’s scheme to defraud MSD of tangible property rights'was “easily separable” from the scheme to deprive it of its intangible rights, so that the indictment is sufficient to state an offense under the mail fraud statute.”
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.