Castro v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
23 F.2d 263 · 1927
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1946
3 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Boyd v. United States · Coffey v. United States · Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. United States · United States v. Specified Quantities of Intoxicating Liquors · Voorhies v. States
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was essential that the libel to entitle the government to a judgment of forfeiture, should state facts showing that the possession of the liquor, at the time and place of seizure, was unlawful, and that the seizure was lawfully made. See The Ray of Block Island (C. C. A.) 11 F.(2d) 522 ; United States v. Specified Quantities of Intoxicating Liquors (C. C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 835 ; Daeufer-Lieberman Brewing Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 1 , 3, 4.””
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.