Pacheco v. Serendensky’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.3d 348 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Ai Feng Yuan v. United States Department of Justice (2005), Gowan v. Patriot Group, LLC (In Re Dreier LLP) (2011)
12 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and the court may, on motion, dismiss the petition for lack of standing, for failure to state a claim, or for any other lawful reason. Pacheco , 393 F.3d at 352 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)(1)(A) ). A motion to dismiss the third-party petition”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) [T]he petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property ...; or (B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may ... petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.”
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.