Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.3d 252 - United States v. Cihak

United States v. Cihak’s Empirical Analysis

137 F.3d 252 · 1998

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2025
most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Solis (2002), United States v. El-Mezain (2011)

25 federal appellate ·

2501998200020102020decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · G-K Development Co. v. Broadmoor Place Investments · United States v. Aguilar · Sanders v. United States

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) First City paid Banner [Bloch's company] for Bloch’s consulting services; (2) Bloch deposited the checks from First City into Banner’s account; (3) the funds were then wired to another Banner account; (4) from this account, Bloch drew checks payable to himself; (5) these checks were deposited into his personal account; (6) checks made payable to Landan [Cihak’s attorney] were then drawn on this account; (7) these checks were deposited into Lan-dan’s firm's account; (8) from this account, Landan issued checks payable to various banks as payment on Cihak’s outstanding debts and to make investments for Cihak.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No one factor of the Marable analysis is determinative; rather all five factors must be considered in combination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B) (”
    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.