United States v. Weems’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.3d 528 · 1995
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Wacker (1995), United States v. Johnson (2001)
31 federal appellate · 9 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. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Burks v. United States · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Ashe v. Swenson · Montana v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A, as owner of a trademark,' brings an action against B for infringement. B denies the validity of the trademark and denies infringement. The court finds that the trademark is valid, but that B had not infringed it, and gives judgment for B. Thereafter A brings an action against B alleging that since the rendition of judgment B infringed the trademark. B is not precluded from defending this action on the ground that the trademark is invalid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Forney v. Chater“The government had no reason to introduce such evidence because, at the time of trial, under the law of our circuit, the government was not required to prove that a defendant knew that structuring was illegal”); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 , 1465 (10th Cir.1995) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in order to justify invoking collateral estoppel, a factual determination must have been `necessarily' (and not`presumably') decided in the first proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.