Via Mat International South America Ltd. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “[o]nce a person files a claim, the Government is required to either initiate a judicial action or return the property.” That case is inapposite, however, because it pertains to a situation where the Government had already initiated an administrative forfeiture proceeding prior to receiving the claim. 3 . We note that, even if § 983(a) did apply to the present matter, the Government might still have had an opportunity to file a judicial forfeiture action. Section 983(a)(3)(A) allows a court to extend the period in which the Government is allowed to file a complaint for judicial forfeiture”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 645 F. Supp. 2d 381 - Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury

2. “In any case in which the Government files in the appropriate United States district court a complaint for forfeiture of property, any person claiming an interest in the seized property may file a claim asserting such person’s interest in the property in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. $114,031.00 in U.S. Currency

3. “Mootness is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hall v. Secretary