United States v. Elias’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 870 · 1990
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 276 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably United States v. Ritchie (2003), Export Group v. Reef Industries, Inc. (1995)
71 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1607 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1608 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491
Relies on General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · United States v. Martinson · Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America · United States v. U.S. Currency, $83,310.78
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 276 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1607(a) provides that written notice of a seizure of specified property and of the intention to forfeit it shall be published for at least three successive weeks. In addition, written notice of seizure together with information on the applicable procedures shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in the seized article.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 54(b)(5) expressly provides that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 'are not applicable to ... civil forfeiture of property for violation of a statute of the United States.'”
3 later decisions 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.