United States v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis
984 F.2d 1299 · 1993
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Sepulveda (1993), United States v. Innamorati (1993)
68 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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
Relies on Berger v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · Callanan v. United States · Direct Sales Co. v. United States · United States v. William Rabinowich
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A multiplicity of actors united to accomplish the same crime is deemed to present a special set of dangers, either that the criminal end will be achieved, Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 , 593, 81 S.Ct. 321 , 5 L.Ed.2d 312 (1961), or that the conspiracy will carry over to new crimes, United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78 , 88, 35 S.Ct. 682 , 59 L.Ed. 1211 (1915), or both. See 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4(c) (1986) (summarizing the rationale). It is these dangers ... that justify early intervention to stem conspiracies even before they rise to the level of attempts and to impose a separate punishment on the conspirators even if they fail to achieve their ends. This special set of dangers is present if two individuals agree that one of them will sell cocaine and the other will assist; it is arguably not present if one merely sells the same cocaine to another without prearrangement and with no idea of or interest in its intended use.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At some point the relationships converge. A pattern of sales for resale between the same persons, together with details supplying a context for the relationship, might well support a finding of conspiracy. Even a single sale for resale, embroidered with evidence suggesting a joint undertaking between buyer and seller, could suffice. Common knowledge, interdependence, shared purpose and the other ingredients of a conspiracy are matters of degree. Almost everything in such a case depends upon the context and the details. The evaluation of the facts is entrusted largely to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the government charges a defendant with a crime ... but the facts proven at trial vary somewhat from those charged in the indictment ... it is settled law that a conviction for the crime charged will be affirmed unless the variance as to the facts is shown to have prejudiced the defendant.”
2 later decisions 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.