Rende v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is settled in the federal courts that where the claimant fails to timely file an appeal and move for a permanent stay, release or removal of the res from the control of the court ends the court's in rem jurisdiction. The only exception to this general rule is when the res is released accidentally, fraudulently or improperly. The Rio Grande, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 458 , 23 L.Ed. 158 (1874). In The Rio Grande , a vessel was seized by the United States Marshal on materialmen's libels. The United States District Court determined that the libellants' claims did not give rise to maritime liens, and dismissed the libels. Immediately thereafter, the court granted the libellants an appeal and fixed supersedeas bonds, which were posted and approved. In the meantime, the vessel's mortgagees nevertheless managed to obtain an order releasing possession of the vessel to them, and sold it. Their purchasers later claimed that the release order had destroyed the circuit court's appellate jurisdiction in the materialmen's appeal. The United States Supreme Court disagreed, stating: The appeal was taken and allowed before any order of discharge was granted, and the bonds required to make the appeal a stay of proceedings were given within the time required by the statute. ..... We hold the rule to be that a valid seizure and actual control of the res by the marshal gives jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that an accidental or fraudulent or improper removal of it from his custody, or a delive”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman · Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave.

2. “prerequisite to a court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction in a forfeiture proceeding is the court's actual or constructive possession of the property to be forfeited.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave.