Milkint v. Morgenthau’s Empirical Analysis
92 F.2d 266 · 1937
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1992
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 United States v. Chicelli · Fisburn v. Jackson · 16 F. Supp. 895 - United States v. One Hudson Sedan, Serial No. 960,905, Motor No. 44850
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This method of proceeding against seized property ... was an exclusive method and Congress undoubtedly had the right to make this provision. The proceedings had were regular and the plaintiffs had personal notice of them. They chose to stand idle and allow the forfeiture to be prosecuted to a conclusion without availing themselves of the remedies provided by the statute. ... [Pjlaintiffs cannot ignore the plain remedy provided by congress and then invoke the act of a court of equity.”
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.