United States v. One 1982 Chevrolet Crew-Cab Truck Vin 1GCHK33M9C143129’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 178 · 1987
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2016
8 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Forfeiture actions are clearly civil actions against property, and not criminal actions against an individual defendant. As noted by the Supreme Court in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States, 409 U.S. 232, 236 , 93 S.Ct. 489, 492 , 34 L.Ed.2d 438 (1972), Congress can prescribe both criminal and civil penalties for the same offense, and “[t]he fact that the sanctions [are] ... separate and distinct ... is relevant in determining the character of the forfeiture.””
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.