United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 15603 85th Avenue North’s Empirical Analysis
933 F.2d 976 · 1991
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. $242,484.00 (2004), United States v. $12110000 in United States Currency (1993)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand · United States v. A Single Family Residence · United States v. One Chevrolet Impala Vin 1l69u8s156817
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a claimant who has actual knowledge of the commingling of legitimate and drug funds may be spared forfeiture as an innocent owner if the claimant can prove that everything reasonably possible was done to withdraw the commingled funds or to dispose of the property.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no property shall be forfeited . . . to the extent of the 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that when a claimant to a forfeiture action has actual knowledge, at any time prior to the initiation of the forfeiture proceeding, that claimant's legitimate funds are commingled with drug proceeds, traceable in accord with the forfeiture statute, the legitimate funds are subject to forfeiture.”
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.