United States v. One Tract of Real Property Together with All Buildings, Improvements, Appurtenances, & Fixtures’s Empirical Analysis
95 F.3d 422 · 1996
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably In re Seagate Technology, LLC (2007), United States v. O'Dell (2001)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Hickman v. Taylor · United States v. Ursery · Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders · Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Department · Jordan v. United States Department of Justice
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a dismissal with prejudice operates as a rejection of the plaintiff's claims on the merits,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although courts most commonly apply the work product privilege to documents and things, the Supreme Court in Hickman [v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) ] made clear that disclosure of the opinions or mental processes of counsel may occur when nontangible work product is sought through depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admissions. See 329 U.S. at 505, 510-11 , 67 S.Ct. at 390-91, 393-94 ; see also 4 JAMES W. MOORE, MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE U 26.15 (2d ed.1996). When applying the work product privilege to such nontangible information, the principles enunciated in Hickman apply, as opposed to Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies only to “documents and tangible things.””
2 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.