United States v. E-Gold, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 411 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably United States v. Kaley (2009), Kaley v. United States (2014)
6 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 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. § 1960 · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Fuentes v. Shevin · Armstrong v. Manzo · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Douglas Oil Company of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the government has obtained a seizure warrant depriving defendants of assets pending a trial upon the merits, the constitutional right to due process of law entitles defendants to an opportunity to be heard at least where access to the assets is necessary for an effective exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We conclude that (1) the fifth and sixth amendments, considered in combination, require an adversary, post-restraint, pretrial hearing as to probable cause that (a) the defendant committed crimes that provide a basis for forfeiture, and (b) the properties specified as forfeitable in the indictment are properly forfeitable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cook v. State
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.