Moore v. Timmerman’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2010
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Arnett v. Kennedy · Shipman v. DuPre · United States v. ONE 1973 PACE ARROW M300 MOTOR HOME, ETC. · Commercial Credit Corp. v. Webb
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if all property seized is intended to be subject to forfeiture, then the parties claiming an interest in the property must be afforded the basic due process notice and hearing ... [they] must be given an opportunity to come forward and show, if [they] can, why the res should not be forfeited and disposed of as provided for by law. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.