Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 928 F.2d 1 - United States v. Parcel of Land with Building, Appurtenances & Improvements

United States v. Parcel of Land with Building, Appurtenances & Improvements’s Empirical Analysis

928 F.2d 1 · 1991

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
January 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No v. Superline Transportation Company Inc (1992), Macaulay v. Anas (2003)

21 federal appellate · 5 district ·

340199120002010decided

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. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Klapprott v. United States · Norton Ex Rel. Chiles v. Mathews · One Lear Jet Aircraft v. United States

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In exercising its discretion under Rule 60(b), the district court must look, inter alia, to whether the party seeking relief has a potentially meritorious claim or defense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “resolved on the merits in favor of the same party”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.