Boykin v. Boykin’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2015
6 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
Relies on Fuentes v. Shevin · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. · Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin · Jones v. Preuit
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(b) Procedure for Seizure of Property. Whenever any provision of law is invoked through which there is an attempt to seize property through judicial process prior to the entry of judgment, the procedure on application for such a pre-judgment seizure shall be as follows: "(1) Affidavit. The plaintiff shall file with the court an affidavit on personal knowledge, except where specifically provided otherwise, containing the following information: "(A) Description of Property. A description of the claimed property that is sufficient to identify the property and its location. "(B) Statement of Title or Right. A statement that the plaintiff is the owner of the claimed property or is entitled to possession of it, describing the source of such title or right and, if the plaintiff's interest in such property is based on a written instrument, a copy of said instrument must be attached to the affidavit. "(C) Statement of Wrongful Detention. A statement of specific facts which show that the property is *Page 502 wrongfully detained by the defendant and a statement of the cause of such detention according to the best knowledge, information and belief of the plaintiff. "(D) Statement of Risk of Injury. A statement of specific facts in support of the contention, if any, that there is risk of concealment, transfer or other disposition of or damage to the property to the injury of the plaintiff."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The Rule 64 provisions were promulgated to assure that the constitutional guarantees of due process are not violated. See North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc ., 419 U.S. 601 , 95 S.Ct. 719 , 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975); Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co ., 416 U.S. 600 , 94 S.Ct. 1895 , 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974); Fuentes v. Shevin , 407 U.S. 67 , 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Jones v. Preuit Mauldin , 808 F.2d 1435 , modified , 822 F.2d 998 (11th Cir. 1987) (Johnson, J., dissenting). Hence, these rules are to be strictly complied with."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“specific facts which show that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant and a statement of the cause of such detention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.