Moore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 270 · 1875
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 5 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1981 · most notably Swift Company v. United States (1905), Kepner v. United States (1904)
17 federal appellate · 5 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Adams v. Field · Strother v. Lucas · Homer v. Wallis · Young v. Makepeace
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The question is whether they [the Court of Claims] may determine the genuineness of a signature by comparing it with other handwriting of the party. By the general rule of the common law this cannot be done either by the court or a jury, and that is the general rule of this country. But the general rule of the common law, disallowing a comparison of handwriting as proof of signature, has exceptions equally as well settled as the rule itself. One of these exceptions is that, if a paper admitted to bo in the handwriting of the party is in evidence for some other purpose in the case, the signature or paper in question may be compared with it by the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“may determine the genuineness of a signature by comparing it with other handwriting of the party- By the general rule of the common law this cannot be done either by the court or a jury, and that is the general rule of this country. . . . But the general rule of the common law, disallowing a comparison of handwriting as proof of signature, has exceptions equally as well settled as the rule itself. One of these exceptions is, that if a paper admitted to be in the handwriting-of the party, or to have been subscribed by him, is in evidence for some other purpose in the case, the signature or paper in question may be compared with it by the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not distinctly stated in this case that the writing used as a basis of comparison was admitted to be in the claimant’s hand, but it was conceded by counsel that it was in fact the power of attorney given by him to his attorney in fact, by virtue of which he appeared and presented the claim to the court T'nis cercainly amounted to a declaration on his part that it was in his hand, and to pretend the contrary would operate as a fraud on the court.””
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.