634 F. Supp. 409 - United States v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2022
2 federal appellate · 2 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. § 3282 · 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1595A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1613 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1621 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 26 U.S.C. § 7302
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Hoffman v. United States · City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. · Baxter v. Palmigiano · Flemming v. Nestor
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.
“(2) Gross negligence A grossly negligent violation of subsection (a) of this section is punishable by a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed— (A) the lesser of— (i) the domestic value of the merchandise, or (ii) four times the lawful duties of which the United States is or may be deprived, or (B) if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties, 40 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise. (3) Negligence A negligent violation of subsection (a) of this section is punishable by a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed — • (A) the lesser of— (i) the domestic value of the merchandise, or (ii) two times the lawful duties of which the United States is or may be deprived, or (B) if the violation did not affect the assessment of duties, 20 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... Thus, ... penalties in an amount far below the maximum allowable [may be awarded], presumably based on any rational reason including the degree of damages sustained. By replacing forfeiture with varying monetary penalties, which are subject to reduction ... and which, to varying degrees, will relate to damages, Congress has made section 1592 largely remedial, rather than “punitive,” both in “purpose” and “effect.” 10”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“First, the penalty of forfeiture in Boyd 'had absolutely no correlation to any damages sustained by society or the cost of enforcing the law,’ 448 U.S. at 254, 100 S.Ct. at 2644, whereas the monetary penalty in Ward was ‘much more analogous to traditional civil damages.’ Id. Second, as compared to the forfeiture provision in Boyd , which was part of the same statutory section as the provision for imprisonment, the civil and criminal remedies in Ward were in separate statutes enacted seventy years apart. Id. Third, while in Boyd there was the danger that the appellant’s testimony could prejudice him in future criminal proceedings, the statute in Ward specifically barred the use of statutorily mandated disclosures from use in any future criminal actions, other than in actions for perjury of for giving a false statement. Id.”
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.