Ivers v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
581 F.2d 1362 · 1978
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 9 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna (1983), Otherson v. Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service (1983)
61 federal appellate · 9 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 19 U.S.C. § 1305 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 31 U.S.C. § 1101 (Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010) · 31 U.S.C. § 1102 · 31 U.S.C. § 1104 · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Fuentes v. Shevin · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs · California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz · United States v. Stowell
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While a non-frivolous argument to the contrary might well have been made to a finder of fact had Ivers chosen to proceed to trial, we must take his plea of guilty to be an admission of each and every essential element of the [federal] crime charged, including the element of knowledge and willfulness.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'(N)o seizure or forfeiture will be invalidated for delay ... where the claimant is responsible for extending either administrative action or judicial determination beyond the allowable time limits.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(m)oreover, the currency seized was not a wasting asset; any value lost by its retention could have been restored by the addition of interest had Ivers prevailed in the forfeiture action.”
2 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.