United States v. Uddin’s Empirical Analysis
551 F.3d 176 · 2009
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Binday (2015), United States v. Contorinis (2012)
11 federal appellate · 1 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. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 2461 (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990) · 7 U.S.C. § 2024
Relies on Johnson v. United States · United States v. Carboni · United States v. Jacobs · United States v. Canova · United States v. Brennan
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States: ... (C) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to ... any offense constituting "specified unlawful activity”.... (a)(2) For puiposes of paragraph (1), the term "proceeds” is defined as follows: (A) In cases involving ... [certain] unlawful activities ..., the term “proceeds” means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense.”
3 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.