Winters v. Working’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2002
1 federal appellate · 4 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. § 371 · 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 22 U.S.C. § 2778 · 22 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 1 of the Espionage Act of 1917) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2678
Relies on Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman · Robinson v. Hanrahan · United States v. One 1961 Red Chevrolet Impala Sedan, Serial No. 11837A177369 · Wiren v. Eide · Menkarell v. Bureau of Narcotics
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Due process requires that notice of an action be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ssuming arguendo that the plaintiff has the burden of also establishing [that forfeiture was unwarranted], she has sustained her burden”
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.