United States of America v. All Funds on Deposit in any Accounts Maintained in the Names of Meza or De Castro’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 148 · 1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently October 2024
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1355
Relies on United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States · United States v. Pieces of Real Property Roswell New Mexico · The Brig Ann
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of any action or proceeding for the recovery or enforcement of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, incurred under any Act of Congress, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title. (b) (1) A forfeiture action or proceeding may be brought in— (A) the district court for the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred, or (B) any other district where venue for the forfeiture action or proceeding is specifically provided for in section 1395 of this title or any other statute. (2) Whenever property subject to forfeiture under the laws of the United States is located in a foreign country, or has been detained or seized pursuant to legal process or competent authority of a foreign government, an action or proceeding for forfeiture may be brought as provided in paragraph (1), or in the United States District court for the District of Columbia. (d) Any court with jurisdiction over a forfeiture action pursuant to subsection (b) may issue and cause to be served in any other district such process as may be required to bring before the court the property that is the subject of the forfeiture action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny court with jurisdiction over a forfeiture action pursuant to subsection (b)....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is probably no longer necessary to base in rem jurisdiction on the location of property if there have been sufficient contacts with the district in which the suit is filed. No statute, however, says this and the issue has to be repeatedly litigated whenever a foreign government is willing to give effect to a forfeiture order issued by a United States court and turn over seized property to the United States if only the United States is able to obtain such an order.”
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.