Foster v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.3d 1071 · 2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Lane v. Pena Secretary of Transportation · Dolan v. United States Postal Service · Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · Kosak v. United States · Cervantes v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the property was seized for the purpose of forfeiture under any provision of Federal law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense; (2) the interest of the claimant was not forfeited; (3) the interest of the claimant was not remitted or mitigated (if the property was subject to forfeiture); and (4) the claimant was not convicted of a crime for which the interest of the claimant in the property was subject to forfeiture under a Federal criminal forfeiture law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he text of § 2680(c)(1)-(4), uncontradicted by its legislative history, provides some support for a narrow reading of the re-waiver [a waiver, followed by an exception to the waiver (thus no waiver), followed by an exception to the exception (hence back to a waiver) is called a re-waiver] of sovereign immunity in forfeiture actions....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Consequently, we hold that the re-waiver of sovereign immunity in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (c)(1)-(4) applies only to property seized solely for the purpose of forfeiture, even if the government had in mind, and later pursued, judicial forfeiture of property seized initially for a legitimate criminal investigative purpose.”
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.