United States v. Huggins’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 983 · 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1355
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams
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 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he actual knowledge required to defeat a notice-based due process challenge is advance notice-in-fact of forfeiture proceedings, as opposed to notice-in-fact of seizure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]efendant's knowledge of seizure on the day of his arrest was not sufficient to afford him adequate due process.”
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.