Wiren v. Eide’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.2d 757 · 1976
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Tourus Records, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2001), Stypmann v. City & County of San Francisco (1977)
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1595A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1606 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1610 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1613 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Goldberg v. Kelly · United States v. Testan · Fuentes v. Shevin · United States v. Sherwood
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[h]aving received such notice, [appellants] ha[ve] clearly been accorded due process in the application of the statute as to [them] personally.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) If the appraised value does not exceed $10,000, the custodian shall cause a notice of the seizure and of the intention to forfeit and sell or otherwise dispose of the property to be published once a week for at least 3 successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the judicial district in which the seizure occurred. (b) The notice shall: (1) Describe the property seized and show the motor and serial numbers, if any; (2) state the time, cause, and place of seizure; and (3) state that any person desiring to claim the property may, within 20 days from the date of first publication of the notice, file with the custodian a claim to the property and a bond with satisfactory sureties in the sum of $250.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“fafbsent a constitutional deficiency in the application of that provision here, Wiren's failure timely to post the bond after receiving valid notice of the proceedings would, under the statutory scheme, stand as a waiver of his opportunity for a hearing....” Id. at 763 (emphasis added). We held that we had jurisdiction to examine the adequacy of the notice and the constitutionality of the bond requirement, specifically stating that,”
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.