United States v. Hendrickson’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 170 · 1994
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Woody (1995), United States of America v. Mark Ervin Thibodeaux (2000)
47 federal appellate · 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on United States v. Wiggins · United States v. Carey · United States v. Gonzalez · United States v. Brown · United States v. Lieberman
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, we must determine whether the district court has stated adequate grounds for departure. This is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Second, we must determine whether the facts which underlie the grounds for the departure actually exist. This determination is reviewed using the clearly erroneous standard of review. Third, we must determine whether the degree of departure is linked to the structure of the Guidelines. The district court’s findings on what degree of departure is appropriate are given deference.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The substitution of assets provision of subsection [853(p) ] shall not be used to order a defendant to forfeit assets in place of actual property laundered where such defendant acted merely as an intermediary who handled but did not retain the property in the course of the money laundering offense unless the defendant, in committing the offense or offenses giving rise to the forfeiture, conducted three or more separate transactions involving a total of $100,000 or more in any twelve month period.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Forfeiture is to be imposed upon a convicted defendant as provided by statute.”
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.