United States v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 381 · 1995
Citation profile
34 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably United States v. Posada-Rios (1998), United States v. Garza (2005)
34 federal appellate ·
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. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3624 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on United States v. Olano · Pereira v. United States · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Wade v. United States · New Jersey v. New York
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The test to determine whether a defendant caused the mails [or interstate wire facilities] to be used is whether the use was reasonably foreseeable. The defendant need not intend to cause the mails [or wire facilities] to be used.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government's burden, therefore, is to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that [the alleged conspirators] agreed to engage in a scheme to defraud in which they contemplated that the [wire facilities] would likely be used.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen. . . .'”
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.