United States v. Setser’s Empirical Analysis
568 F.3d 482 · 2009
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Janvey v. Alguire (2011), United States v. Hernandez (2011)
15 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 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 754 · 28 U.S.C. § 959
Relies on United States v. Olano · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Stanley v. Georgia · New York v. Burger
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A receiver takes over property only after a court has agreed with the arguments and evidence that such a takeover is necessary .... Because the receiver was taking possession of everything in those categories that had been the property of the defendants for whom the receivership was authorized, further particularity would have served no purpose. After the seizure, the receiver had possession of the property only because had had been authorized by court order. We find no basis to support the argument that more was needed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Loss shall be reduced by the following.... The money returned, ... by the defendant or other persons acting jointly with the defendant, to the victim before the offense was detected. The time of detection of the offense is the earlier of (I) the time the offense was discovered by a victim or government agency; or (II) the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the offense was detected or about to be detected by a victim or government agency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“particularity is not translatable to the receiver context [because] once appointed, the receiver often takes possession of the distressed or distrusted entity”
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.