United States v. One Parcel of Real Property with Buildings Appurtenances and Improvements Known As Emerson Street Located in City of Providence Rhode Island’s Empirical Analysis
942 F.2d 74 · 1991
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency (1998), United States v. Premises Known As South Woodward Street al. (1993)
22 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Vermont v. Cox · Jones v. United States · United States v. $250000 in United States Currency · Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dingwell
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“facially colorable interest in the proceedings sufficient to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement ....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States of America, (95-6579 97-5016) v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency, Ralph E. White E.M. Jellinek Center, Inc., Claimants-Appellees. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant (96-6175) v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency Virginia Hurst, Ralph E. White E.M. Jellinek Center, Inc., Claimants-Appellants (96-6057)/cross-Appellees · United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency“A resulting trust arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person taking or holding the property should have the beneficial interest therein, unless the inference is rebutted or the beneficial interest is otherwise effectively disposed of.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the party must claim an interest in the property; (2) disposition of the case without intervention, would, as a practical matter, impair or impede the party’s ability to protect that interest; (3) the party’s interest is inadequately represented by the existing parties; and (4) the motion for intervention is timely made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ewers v. Heron · Ewers v. Liner
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.