United States v. A Parcel of Land with a Building Located Thereon at 40 Moon Hill Road’s Empirical Analysis
884 F.2d 41 · 1989
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 13 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably United States v. Plat 20, Lot 17 (1992), United States v. 4492 South Livonia Road (1989)
31 federal appellate · 13 district · 12 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act)
Relies on United States v. Halper · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States Marcus v. Hess · Helvering v. Mitchell · United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The ravages of drugs upon our nation and the billions the government is being forced to spend upon investigation and enforcement — not to mention the costs of drug-related crime and drug abuse treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention — easily justify a recovery in excess of the strict value of the property actually devoted to growing the illegal substance_” Id. at 44.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ll real property ... which is used ... to facilitate the commission of a violation of [the Controlled Substances Act] punishable by more than one year's imprisonment....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The doctrine of Double Jeopardy does not apply to suits brought by separate sovereigns, even if both are criminal suits for the same offense. The appellants were convicted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and for the cultivation of marijuana in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a sovereignty separate from the federal government. Therefore, even if the federal government had brought a criminal case against the appellants on the basis of the same acts, such a case would not be barred by Double Jeopardy.””
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.