United States v. Cretacci’s Empirical Analysis
62 F.3d 307 · 1995
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 15 district · 11 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 19 U.S.C. § 1609 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch · United States v. Flores-Payon · United States v. $40508923 US Currency · United States v. Torres
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an administrative forfeiture of unclaimed property simply constitutes the taking of abandoned property”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an owner who receives notice of the intended forfeiture and fails to claim an ownership interest in the property has effectively abandoned it,”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the argument that by requiring a defendant to claim his property we force him to sacrifice his right against self-incrimination in order to preserve his right against Double Jeopardy.”
4 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.