Hoffmann v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. “[P]laintiffs-appellants are not free to assert on remand 'all arguments previously made' with respect to the ‘non-vested portion of the [photographic] archive.’ In view of our August 16 decision and our denial today of plaintiffs-appellants' petition for rehearing, plaintiffs-appellants are limited in terms of the arguments they may make on remand. The only claim that plaintiffs-appellants may assert on remand is their claim of an implied-in-fact contract of bailment with respect to the 'non-vested portion of the [photographic] archive'.... If the district court rules in the government's favor on its statute of limitations defense, or if it rules in the government's favor on any other dispos-itive defense that, consistent with this opinion, is properly before it, then the case will be over, subject, of course, to any appeal of plaintiffs-appellants.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 266 F. Supp. 2d 27 - Hoffmann v. United States

2. “Plaintiffs argue that the Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between aliens and citizens, and note that the Supreme Court has held that Fifth Amendment protection can extend to a non-enemy alien. Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481, 489 , 51 S.Ct. 229 , 75 L.Ed. 473 (1931). However, Constitutional protections extend to aliens only “when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.’ United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 , 110 S.Ct. 1056 , 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990). Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish ‘substantial connections’ to the United States, we affirm the district court’s decision with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 266 F. Supp. 2d 27 - Hoffmann v. United States

3. “I held the opinion until 20 May 49 that my property would be immediately returned to me. I regarded it as property on loan which I was to administer. The information of Army seizure therefore came as all the more of a shock to me.... In concluding I take the liberty of asking one more question. Why am I being dispossessed of my archive ? ... I can hardly believe that American colleagues who today photograph President Truman daily would agree with the principle that one day they would be dispossessed of their personal property taken without reason and without any court decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 266 F. Supp. 2d 27 - Hoffmann v. United States