United States v. $17308104 in US Currency and One Personal Check Drawn by Jaime Buendia in the Amount of $2112800’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.2d 1141 · 1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2002
1 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 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 31 U.S.C. § 5311 · 31 U.S.C. § 5312 · 31 U.S.C. § 5316 · 31 U.S.C. § 5317 · 31 U.S.C. § 5321
Relies on American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp. · United States v. Busher · United States v. Granda · United States v. Currency Totalling $48,318.08 · United States v. Grande
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if filed, contains a material omission or misstatement of fact.” 31 U.S.C. § 5317 (c). In the present case, then, it would appear that Leila Farha’s failure to fully and accurately report all of the monetary instruments in her possession — and, in particular, her “material omission” of the negotiable checks — subjected the entirety of the monetary instruments in her possession to seizure and forfeiture, absent a defense to forfeiture. 13 . The parties also refer to a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.