Lee v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1459 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1460 · 19 U.S.C. § 1497 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1594 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1595A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1606 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Carroll v. United States · Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Bolling v. Sharpe
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.
“(1) the accused may present his version of the facts surrounding his alleged violation of § 1459 after receiving notice orally or in writing of that allegation; (2) he shall have the privilege of confronting and questioning any witnesses against him; (3) the official is required to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that § 1459 was violated by the accused; (4) the accused must be advised of and allowed to submit a petition for remittance or mitigation under § 1618; (5) the official is required to exercise the discretion granted under § 1618 to determine the maximum fine that should, in the circumstances, be imposed; (6) the accused is afforded the opportunity to post security equal to the maximum penalty as determined in (5) above, which, if posted, will secure the release of the vehicle; and (7) the hearing officer shall summarize the substance of the hearing and his conclusions on the appropriate forms.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lee v. Thornton“under 19 U.S.C. § 1618. Lee filed that petition on October 27, 1971, in which he set forth his version of the circumstances surrounding the events of October 4 (sic: 5). On November 1, 1971, Thornton notified Lee by letter that the fine had been remitted in full and the forfeiture of the van mitigated to $100”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Thornton“would secure the release of the automobile under 19 U.S.C. § 1614. 1 Rich paid the deposit and the automobile was released. On January 6, 1972, Rich received a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Thornton
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.