Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 1006 - Breath v. Cronvich

Breath v. Cronvich’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 1006 · 1984

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Coleman v. Watt (1994), Propert v. District of Columbia (1991)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

2401984199020002010decided

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

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Fuentes v. Shevin · Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft · Lambert v. People of the State of California · Texaco, Inc. v. Short

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

  1. “(1) the deprivation is directly necessary to secure an important government or general public interest, (2) there is a special need for very prompt action, and (3) the person initiating the seizure has been a government official responsible for determining, under the standards of a narrowly drawn statute, that it was necessary and justified in the particular instance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This bond procedure, combined with the hearing on the merits of the ticket, affords adequate due process protection. The procedure protects the government’s interest in retaining security for the owner’s payment of towing and storage fees, and also protects the vehicle owner’s interest in the uninterrupted use of his automobile.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “when a car is towed or impounded, some form of fair and impartial hearing at which an owner is provided an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of removing his car and assessing charges against him must be provided within a reasonable time period.”
    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.