United States v. One Tintoretto Painting Entitled "The Holy Family with Saint Catherine & Honored Donor"’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Holy Family with Saint Catherine and Honored Donor”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vernon Patrick v. Eugene Lefevre, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility Rev. Doctor Earl B. Moore, Chaplain and Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services · Schering Corporation v. Home Insurance Company

2. “.. it would be difficult to reject the constitutional claim of an owner whose property subjected to forfeiture had been taken from him without his privity or consent. Similarly, the same might be said of an owner who proved not only that he was uninvolved in and unaware of the wrongful activity, but also that he had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of his property; for in such circumstance, it would be difficult to conclude that forfeiture served legitimate purposes and was not unduly oppressive.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Eighty-Three Rolex Watches · United States v. Certain Real Property & Premises Known as 171-02 Liberty Avenue, Queens

3. ““The burden rests on the moving party to demonstrate the lack of genuine fact issue. Adickes ¶. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 [ 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 ] (1970). In its search of the record the court should resolve all ambiguities and inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 [ 82 S.Ct. 993, 994 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 ] (1962); Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir.1980). The possibility that a factual issue may exist will not defeat the motion, rather the party opposing summary judgment must indicate that a genuine dispute as to a material fact does exist. Uncertainty as to the true state of any material fact defeats the motion. Quinn, 613 F.2d at 445 .””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 627 F. Supp. 13 - Ishtyaq v. Nelson · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12492 - Martinez v. City of Meriden, No. Cv94-0365941 S (Nov. 6, 1995)