No. 86-3710’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Shelden v. United States (1993), United States v. Miscellaneous Jewelry (1987)
5 district · 1 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 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · United States v. Causby · Armstrong v. United States · Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford · Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(а) Subject Property. The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property rights shall exist in them: (б) All money ... or other things of value, furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this sub-chapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, ... except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of the interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[ T]o the extent that “innocent” owners have a stake in such property, no forfeiture can occur. Where, as here, that stake encompasses a right to receive continuing interest payments on unpaid principal, we hold that the innocent owner is entitled to receive such payments from the government, even after the property has been seized, until the principal is repaid.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]uch a result would deprive Metmor of its stake in the forfeited property and would constitute a taking without due process.... The forfeiture cannot change the nature of Metmor's rights as an innocent mortgagee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.