United States v. Seifuddin’s Empirical Analysis
820 F.2d 1074 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably United States v. Gilbert (2001), Serio v. Baltimore County (2004)
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 18 U.S.C. § 545 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 1102
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States v. Jeffers · United States Marcus v. Hess · Helvering v. Mitchell
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“allege the extent of the interest or property subject to forfeiture”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The classical distinction between civil and criminal forfeiture was founded upon whether the penalty assessed was against the person or against the thing. Forfeiture against the person operated in personam and required a conviction before the property could be wrested from the defendant. Such forfeitures were regarded as criminal in nature because they were penal; they primarily sought to punish. Forfeiture against the thing was in rem and the forfeiture was based upon the unlawful use of the res, irrespective of its owner’s culpability. These forfeitures were regarded as civil; their purpose was remedial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
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.