McClendon v. Rosetti’s Empirical Analysis
460 F.2d 111 · 1972
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Wolfish v. Levi (1978), Weigner v. City of New York (1988)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Speiser v. Randall · William Truax v. Mike Raich · Lambert v. People of the State of California
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the ordinance is fatally deficient in other terms of due process. The burden of proof in any civil action is expressly put upon the claimant “from whose possession such property or money was taken or obtained, or any other claimant” to “establish that he has a lawful title or property right in such property or money and lawfully obtained possession thereof and that such property or money was held and used in a lawful manner.” New York, N.Y. Administrative Code § 435-4.0 (f) (Supp.1971). As the section has been construed by the New York courts, the burden exists even if there is insufficient evidence for an indictment. It exists even after acquittal or dismissal. It seems plain enough that absent evidence of unlawful conduct, criminal sanctions may not be imposed nor property forfeited even though in the case of property forfeiture the burden of proof on the government seeking it is only by a preponderance of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It seems plain enough that absent evidence of unlawful conduct, criminal sanctions may not be imposed, Taylor v. Louisiana, 370 U.S. 154 , 82 S.Ct. 1188 , 8 L.Ed.2d 395 (1962); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 , 80 S.Ct. 624 , 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960), nor property forfeited, United States v. One 1936 Model Ford etc. Coach, 307 U.S. 219 , 59 S.Ct. 861 , 83 L.Ed. 1249 (1939), even though in the case of property forfeiture the burden of proof on the government seeking it is only by a preponderance of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““as applied to persons from whose possession money or property, other than contraband, has been taken or obtained, though such money or property was not related to any criminal proceeding, or if it was so related, such criminal proceedings had been terminated, or if the money or property had been needed as evidence in a criminal proceeding, it was no longer needed for that purpose . . (.McClendon at 116 ).”
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.