Willis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 1089 · 1986
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Giraldo (1995), United States v. Woodall (1993)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 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 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · United States v. Mitchell · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown · United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty Dollars
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance. Nothing herein (1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or (2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... because Willis chose not to contest probable cause initially, he has waived his right to complain now, unless we find that waiver to have been ineffective. Thus, we turn to Willis’ second claim, that the DEA’s inadequate notice rendered his waiver a nullity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If you intend to place the matter in the United States District Court to contest the probable cause for this seizure, a claim and cost bond of $250.00 must be filed with this office on or before September 16, 1981.”
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.