United States v. 5443 Suffield Terrace’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 504 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 19 U.S.C. § 1595A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1621 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on United States v. Dunkel · United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency · Middleton v. City of Chicago · United States v. James Daniel Good · Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]nfortunately... saying so doesn't make it so....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ummary judgment may only be defeated by pointing to admissible evidence in the summary judgment record that creates a genuine issue of material fact, and it was not the district court's job to sift through the record and make [a claimant's] case for him”
2 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.