Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 466 F.3d 79 - United States v. Ness

United States v. Ness’s Empirical Analysis

466 F.3d 79 · 2006

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2011
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)

Relies on Griffin v. United States · United States v. Miller · United States v. Prince · United States v. Carr · United States v. Gotti

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

  1. ““Whoever transports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit, or transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States or to a place in the United States from or through a place outside the United States— “(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or “(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or in part— “(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or “(ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, “shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, transmission, or transfer whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. For the purpose of the offense described in subparagraph (B), the defendant’s knowledge may be established by proof that a law enforcement officer represented the matter specified in subparagraph (B) as true, and the defendant’s subsequent statements or actions indicate that the defendant believed such representations to be true.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clandestine meetings to transfer large sums of concealed cash, the use of coded language, and the scrupulous avoidance of a paper trail.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a jury could find that the acts of which Ness is accused were designed, at least in part, to conceal the identity of the funds.”
    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.