Bohanan v. Nebraska
Cases that cite this one
92 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States of America, Cross-Movant-Appellee v. Sherif Awadalla, Movant-Defendant-Appellant (2d Cir. 2004)
- United States v. Zedner (2d Cir. 2008)
- Satoko Matsumoto v. Tatsuya Matsumoto (N.J. 2002)
- Johnny Daccarett-Ghia, Alleged Alter Ego or Nominee of Friko Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- In re Ben Jean Prevot and Arielle Dominique Prevot, the Minor Children. Jean-Claude Prevot v. Debra Moseman Prevot (6th Cir. 1995)
- State v. Rogers (N.J. 1982)
- Estelle v. Dorrough (Supreme Court of the United States 1975)
- Leslie Irvin v. Alfred F. Dowd, Warden (7th Cir. 1958)
- Messa v. Rubin (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1995)
- Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)
- United States v. George Gordon Liddy (D.C. Cir. 1975)
- Dorrough v. Estelle (5th Cir. 1974)
- White v. State (Alaska 1973)
- Eisler v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
- Niemi v. Lasshofer (10th Cir. 2013)
- Cedeno v. Conway (District Court, W.D. New York 2010)
- United States v. Kashamu (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2009)
- State v. Raiburn (Kan. Ct. App. 2007)
- United States v. Erdil (District Court, E.D. New York 2005)
- Tejada v. IN RE FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY $406,626.11 IN US CURRENCY (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- State v. Fisher (N.J. 1998)
- United States v. Barnette (11th Cir. 1997)
- State v. Fisher (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- State v. Gonzales (La. Ct. App. 1996)
- United States v. $40,877.59 in United States Currency, Anas Malik Dohan, Claimant-Appellant (7th Cir. 1994)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
It appearing that during the pendency of this writ the plaintiff in error has escaped, and is not now within the control of the court below, either actually, by being in custody, or constructively, by being out on bail, it is ordered that the submission of the cause be set aside and that unless the -plaintiff in error is brought or comes within the jurisdiction and under the control of the court below on or before the last day of, this term the cause be thereafter left off the docket until directions to the contrary. Smith v. United States, 94 Ü. S_ 97.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.