United States v. Heaps’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 479 · 1994
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably United States v. Cabrales (1998), United States v. Alerre (2005)
35 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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Doerr v. Doerr · Utility Contractors, Inc. v. United States · Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity--with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“virtually every sale of drugs would be an automatic money laundering violation as soon as money changed hands.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) location of the defendant; (b) location of witnesses; (c) location of events likely to be in issue; (d) location of documents and records; (e) disruption of the defendant’s business; (f) expense to the parties; (g) location of counsel; (h) relative accessibility of place of trial; (i) docket conditions in each district; and (j) any other specific element which might affect the transfer.”
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.