Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 779 F.2d 5 - United States v. Tugwell

United States v. Tugwell’s Empirical Analysis

779 F.2d 5 · 1985

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2004
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2004

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

140198519902000decided

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 United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc · Peed v. Burleson's, Inc. · United States v. Friend's Stockyard, Inc. · United States v. Pete Brown Enterprises, Inc.

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

  1. “act of taking possession of the [property] with intent to acquire in it a proprietary interest that [the seller] was not empowered to give represents sufficiently serious unauthorized dominion over the [property] to fulfill the second element of the tort.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hen a debtor makes an unauthorized disposition of collateral, ... the secured party may repossess the collateral from [the transferee] or in an appropriate case maintain an action for conversion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “apparently was unaware of FmHA's security interest,”
    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.