green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. State
(2×)
See Goode, supra § 603.1 n. 10 (citing Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966 , 75 S.Ct. 530 , 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955); Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 939 F.2d 1207 (5th Cir.1991), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir.1992); Ferguson v. Commissioner, 921 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.1991); Gordon v. Idaho, 778 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Looper, 419 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir.1969)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jimmie Durrell Washington
See United States v. Moore, 217 F.2d 428 (7th Cir. 1954), rev’d on other grounds, 348 U.S. 966 , 75 S.Ct. 530 , 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wallace Ward
(2×)
See also Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966 , 75 S.Ct. 530 , 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955) (per curiam) (criminal defendant with religious objections to the word “solemnly” in the oath must be allowed to testify).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wallace Ward
(2×)
See also Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966 , 75 S.Ct. 530 , 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955) (per curiam) (criminal defendant with religious objections to the word "solemnly" in the oath must be allowed to testify). 14 Neither the magistrate nor the district court cited to any of these authorities, relying instead on their perception that the standard oath had not changed "for hundreds of years." While oaths including the familiar "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth" formulation date back at least to the seventeenth century, see 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1818(2) (Chadbourne rev. 1976), the princ…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Guy Herman, Judge of the Travis County Court at Law
(3×)
See, e.g., Moore v. United States, 348 U.S. 966 , 75 S.Ct. 530 , 99 L.Ed. 753 (1955) (error to prevent testimony by member of Harshmanite Church who declined "because of religious scruples, to use the word 'solemnly' in affirming to tell the truth"; "[t]here is no requirement that the word 'solemnly' be used in the affirmation"). 62 In marked contrast to the foregoing, however, there may be those--and nothing in this record suggests that appellant O'Hair is not among them--who object to formally making, to a public official authorized to administer an oath or affirmation, any sort of express d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 513.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 28, 1955.
Joseph M. Rault and Walter Carroll for petitioner., Solicitor General SobelojJ for the United States.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.