United States v. Caparotta’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 208 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Duncan v. Walker · George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker · United States v. Santos · United States v. Hurley · United States v. McHan
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress substantially amended § 853 along with other forfeiture provisions as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 to enhance the effectiveness of then existing forfeiture statutes under both the Organized Crime Control Act, which was aimed at “racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations” (RICO), and the Drug Control Act. The legislative history leaves no doubt that Congress intended to impose the sanction of criminal forfeiture against drug traffickers in order to strip these offenders and organizations of their economic power.”
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.