49 F. Supp. 2d 514 - United States v. Loe’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Bajakajian · Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States · Dennis v. Dennis · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · Anchors v. United States
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[defendants’ money laundering offenses were related to other illegal activities, including a scheme to defraud insurance companies and a conspiracy to violate the mail and wire fraud statutes. Additionally, $507,491.11 of the approximate $789,000.00 subject to forfeiture constitute proceeds fraudulently obtained from insurance companies. Therefore, the Court [found] that forfeiture of 52.6% of the Florida property [was] not excessive under the Bajakajian test and [did] not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny property, real or personal, involved in” money laundering or”
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.