In re Behrens’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.2d 561 · 1930
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1988 · most notably New Hampshire Fire Insurance v. Scanlon (1960), Raffaele v. Granger (1952)
21 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 Weeks v. United States · United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile · Cogen v. United States · Maryland v. Soper · Slocum v. Mayberry
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * to direct the officer who detains the seized property as to its disposition. This is perfectly clear after process in forfeiture proceedings has been issued. See cases cited in United States v. Hee, D.C.N.J., 219 F. 1019, 1021 . Before such process has been issued, jurisdiction exists, to order the officer to elect either promptly to institute proceedings for forfeiture or to abandon the seizure and return the property. i}? “If the delay in instituting a suit for forfeiture has been so great as to preclude success in such a proceeding it has been held that the goods may be ordered returned to the owner. In re Brenner, [2 Cir.], 6 F.2d 425 . See, also, Margie v. Potter, D.C.Mass., 291 F. 285 . “None of these cases, however, go to the extent of holding that the legality of the seizure may be determined on a summary petition by the owner for the return of his property. On the contrary, they strongly intimate that the owner’s proper and orderly procedure is to determine this question upon proceedings for forfeiture.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the value returned by the appraiser of any vessel, vehicle, merchandise, or baggage so seized is greater than $2,500., the collector shall transmit a ■ report of the case, with the names of available witnesses, to the United States attorney for the district in which the seizure was made f«r the institution of the proper proceedings for the condemnation of such property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is clear that the owner of property unlawfully seized has without statute no summary remedy for a return of his property. * * * He may have trespass, or, if there be no statute to the contrary, re-plevin; but, just as in our law no public officer has any official protection, so no individual has exceptional remedies for abuse of power by such officers.””
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.