United States v. Real Property & Improvements’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 373 · 1991
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Region 8 Forest Service Timber Purchasers Council v. Alcock (1993), Nos. 91-5470, 91-5768 (1992)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand · United States v. $38,000.00 in United States Currency · United States v. A Single Family Residence · American National Bank of Jacksonville v. Federal Deposit Insurance
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.
“except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lansky [claimant] testified that she and her son entered an agreement whereby she allowed him to live on the property rent free until she retired. This arrangement would continue so long as he paid the bills and did not do anything illegal on the premises. Lansky visited the premises on a regular basis to clean the residence____ As to Lansky’s ownership of the property, Lansky executed the contract for purchase of the house on December 11, 1978. A warranty deed was issued in her name. Although it is suspicious that the property was purchased with $50,000 cash, testimony was presented by various witnesses that the money came from a lawsuit settlement involving Lansky’s daughter, Charlene Hicks. While we share the government’s concern that no documentary evidence reflected this cash source, testimony was presented by family and non-family members that Charlene Hicks recovered a cash settlement from a motorcycle accident. Obviously, the district court is in the better position to consider the credibility of these witnesses. And, having noted that “[fjailure to document the origin of the money used to purchase the Defendant property can result in the claimant’s failure to demonstrate standing,” ... the [district] court concluded that Lansky had standing to contest the forfeiture.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it [was] simply unknown how obvious drug activity was on the premises.” Id. at 376 . Ms. Jenkins' situation was completely different. Unlike the claimant in 5000 Palmetto Drive, she did not condition her daughters’ residence in her home upon their not doing anything illegal. She merely”
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.