United States v. American Investors of Pittsburgh, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.2d 1087 · 1989
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Pungitore (1990), United States v. McGlory (1992)
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 31 U.S.C. § 5311 · 31 U.S.C. § 5312 · 31 U.S.C. § 5313
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Illinois v. Gates · Glasser v. United States · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“associated himself with the criminal venture as something he wished to bring about and that he sought by his actions to make it succeed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, given the range of information required to unravel the laundering scheme and the extent of participation by the parties, the warrant was as specific as circumstances would allow, however broad the requirements of the search might be. We cannot see how any more precise language in the affidavit could have limited the scope of the search authorized by the magistrate, despite the fact that the language of the warrant was broader than that of the affidavit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From on or about July 28, 1988 to on or about December 9, 1988 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, defendants MICHAEL DAVID ALSTON, and RICHARD ROSA did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together with an unindicted co-conspirator, and others unknown to the grand jury: a. to defraud the United States and the Department of the Treasury, an agency of the United States, by impairing, obstructing, and defeating its lawful governmental function of collecting data and reports of currency transactions in excess of $10,000; and b. to knowingly and willfully structure, and attempt, aid, abet and cause the structuring of, financial transactions with a domestic financial institution for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313 (a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (a)(3). “Structuring” entails the breaking down of large amounts of U.S. currency into smaller amounts of less than $10,000 preliminary to transacting business with a financial institution in an attempt to avoid the CTR reporting requirements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.