Jones v. Flowers’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
98 federal appellate · 87 district · 546 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,023 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (2010), District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009)
98 federal appellate · 87 district · 546 state decisions — followed in 41 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Supreme Court of Arkansas)
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 3758 · 26 U.S.C. § 6335 · 28 U.S.C. § 3203
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · Dickerson v. United States · Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
Cited together with Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Dusenbery v. United States · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · Mathews v. Eldridge · Greene v. Lindsey
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 1,023 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Due process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the government may take his property.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[p]eople must pay their taxes, and the government may hold citizens accountable for tax delinquency by taking their property. But before forcing a citizen to satisfy his debt by forfeiting his property, due process requires the government to provide adequate notice of the impending taking.”
8 later decisions 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.