United States v. Certain Real Property and Premises Known As’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 78 · 1995
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Nabisco Inc Nabisco Brands Company v. Pf Brands Inc Pepperidge Farm Inc (1999), Edith Libutti v. United States of America (1997)
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 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. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Austin v. United States · Williams v. Florida
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination must bear the consequence of lack of evidence, ... and the claim of privilege will not prevent an adverse finding or even summary judgment if the litigant does not present sufficient evidence to satisfy the usual evidentiary burdens in the litigation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“district court should, in general, take a liberal view towards [an application to withdraw the privilege and testify], for withdrawal of the privilege allows adjudication based on consideration of all the material facts to occur. The court should be especially inclined to permit withdrawal of the privilege if there are no grounds for believing that opposing parties suffered undue prejudice from a litigant’s later-regretted decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“if the litigant's request to waive comes only at the 'eleventh hour' and appears to be part of a manipulative, 'cat-and-mouse approach' to the litigation, a trial court may be fully entitled, for example, to bar a litigant from testifying later about matters previously hidden from discovery through an invocation of the privilege.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.