Clymore v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.3d 1113 · 2005
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2025
12 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · United States v. Martinson · Mora v. United States · United States v. Bein
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.
“Motion to Return Property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree with the majority of the circuits and conclude sovereign immunity bars monetary relief in a Rule 41(e) proceeding when the government no longer possesses the property. Neither Mora [v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 1992)] nor [United States v.] Martinson [ 809 F.2d 1364, 1366 (9th Cir.1987)] addressed sovereign immunity. Rather, their holdings rested in large part on equitable considerations. However, "fairness or policy reasons cannot by themselves waive sovereign immunity." United States v. $30,006.25 in U.S. Currency, 236 F.3d 610, 614 (10th Cir.2000) (holding sovereign immunity prohibited an award of prejudgment interest to the claimant upon the return of his property). Based on the above, to the extent the government is no longer in possession of the property and Clymore seeks monetary relief, sovereign immunity bars his claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeLOGE v. State“(a) Subject property The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: (6) All moneys ... or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys ... used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchap-ter ....”
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.