Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 F.2d 229 - Simpson v. United States

Simpson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

272 F.2d 229 · 1959

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
August 2002
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2002

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

90195919601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 4411 · 26 U.S.C. § 4412 · 26 U.S.C. § 7302

Relies on United States v. Lane Motor Co. · Arthur T. Stanton v. Everett P. Larsh · United States v. Plymouth Coupe (1941) Serial No. 15051526 · United States v. Lane Motor Co.

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

  1. “It is established by United States v. Lane Motor Co., 344 U.S. 630 , 73 S.Ct. 459 , 97 L.Ed. 622 , affirming 10 Cir., 199 F.2d 495 , and United States v. Plymouth Coupe, 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 180 , that an automobile used only for the personal convenience of the owner as transportation to the site of the illicit operation is not subject to seizure. 272 F.2d at 231 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whether the use of the car as established by the record [is] so connected with the allegedly illicit [activity] as to subject the car to forfeiture. Simpson, supra, 272 F.2d at 230 .”
    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.