United States v. One Chevrolet Van H’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 39 · 1991
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Plat 20, Lot 17 (1992), Madewell v. Downs (1995)
22 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1355
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · Stafford v. Oklahoma · Hullum v. United States · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a 'reasonable ground for belief ... supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion' that the property is subject to forfeiture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“this conclusion is not altered by the fact that the car was seized following a search conducted pursuant to a state search warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Terry“a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a res that is already subject to the in rem jurisdiction of another court,”
1 later decision 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.