United States v. Ripinsky’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 359 · 1994
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. Voigt (1996), United States of America v. Vasak Sarkisian (1999)
52 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bibby v. United States · Austin v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Poland v. Arizona · Kelly v. Robinson
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e) Protective Orders (1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) of this section for forfeiture under this section— (A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation ... for which criminal forfeiture may be ordered under this section and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any of the property described in subsection (a), as a result of any act or omission of the defendant— (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (5).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally, the law provides that if, upon conviction, forfeitable assets are unreachable by the government, the court shall order the forfeiture of substitute assets: property of the defendant that is not connected to the underlying crime. 21 U.S.C. § 853 (p). While it is clear that upon conviction the government may seize substitute assets if the forfeitable assets are unavailable, the question in this case is whether the government may restrain substitute assets prior to conviction.”
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.