United States v. Sperrazza’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.3d 1113 · 2015
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2074 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313 · 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (§ 1354 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Olano · Ratzlaf et Ux United States · United States v. Bajakajian · United States v. Santos
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Consequences of Not Making a Timely Motion Under Rule 12(b)(3). If a party does not meet the deadline for making a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may consider the defense, objection, or request if the party shows good cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. U.S. v. Guerrero“a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the old version of the rule, Sperrazza waived his claim ... because he did not raise it before trial,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phillips v. People
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.