United States v. Twenty (20) Cashier's Checks, Having the Aggregate Value of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars in U.S. Currency’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 1567 · 1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties (1991), United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency (1998)
6 federal appellate · 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
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1615 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Molinaro v. New Jersey
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] party seeking to challenge the government's forfeiture of money or property used in violation of federal law must first demonstrate an interest in the seized item sufficient to satisfy the court of its standing to contest 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.