United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of $2,857.00’s Empirical Analysis
754 F.2d 208 · 1985
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably United States v. 4492 South Livonia Road (1989), United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency (1987)
43 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990)
Relies on Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars · United States v. One Tintoretto Painting Entitled "The Holy Family with Saint Catherine & Honored Donor" · Baker v. United States
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The claimant of property that is the subject of an action in rem shall file a claim within 10 days after process has been executed, or within such additional time as may be allowed by the court, and shall serve an answer within 20 days after the filing of the claim. The claim shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation, and shall state the interest in the property by virtue of which the claimant demands its restitution and the right to defend the action.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“apply to the procedure in statutory condemnation proceedings analogous to maritime actions in rem, whether within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction or not”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The claim [that Raymer filed with the DEA] was never filed in the district court, and the record indicates that the first the district court saw of the claim was when Raymer attached a copy of it to his response to the government’s motion for summary judgment on May 16, 1983. Such a claim does not fulfill an important function of the claim requirement of Rule C(6) — notifying the court that the claimant is entitled, by virtue of his sworn claim to the property, to join the action and be heard. ... Raymer filed nothing with the district court to notify the court that he had a sworn interest in the currency. Although his answer admitted a paragraph in the complaint stating that Raymer was believed to be the owner of the currency, the answer was unsworn and signed only by Raymer’s counsel. The answer did not refer to either Raymer’s DEA claim or his petition for remission. There were no accompanying affidavits. In sum, Raymer’s DEA claim cannot be deemed to fulfill the claim requirement of Supplemental Rule C(6). See United States v. One 1979 Oldsmobile-Cutlass Supreme, 589 F.Supp. 477, 478 (N.D.Ga.1984) (claimant who filed answer in district court without filing claim, in mistaken belief that prior administrative claim was sufficient, did not have essential element of standing to contest forfeiture — the filing of a proper claim under Rule C(6)).”
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.