United States v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1427 · 1987
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Hurley (1995), United States v. Schmidt (1991)
32 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Kolender v. Lawson · California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz · United States v. Moran · United States v. Varbel · United States v. Dela Espriella
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Due process requires that penal statutes define criminal offenses with sufficient clarity that an ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 , 357 [ 103 S.Ct. 1855 , 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 ] (1983). Section 5313 and its regulations do not clearly require depositors to identify the source of their funds. Therefore, the imposition of criminal sanctions on these facts would violate due process. Cf. Varbel, 780 F.2d at 762 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the identity ... of the individual or organization for whose account the transaction is being made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“financial institution” so that when he received the cash from the agents at Freedom Federal, a duty attached requiring him to file a CTR in addition to the one he would complete immediately upon depositing the money. We do not think the regulations contemplate such a scenario. 20 . See supra notes 11-12. 21 . This language resembles the language contained in 31 U.S.C. section 5313(a), which provides: "A participant acting for another person shall make the report as the agent or bailee of the person and identify the person for whom the transaction is being made.” 22 . The ambiguity arose out of language contained in the explanatory instructions to Part II, which referred to "the identity ... of the individual or organization for whose account the transaction is being made.”
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.