United States v. Parcels of Property, with Building Appurtenances & Improvements Located at 255 Broadway’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.3d 1000 · 1993
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. $19191000 in US Currency R (1994), United States v. $9,041,598.68 (1998)
19 federal appellate · 7 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 19 U.S.C. § 1615 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 2465
Relies on American Petrofina Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Local No. 4-23 · United States v. Plat 20, Lot 17 · Stacey v. Emery · Renne v. Geary · United States v. $250000 in United States Currency
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that there was reasonable cause for the seizure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant $9,041,598.68, in whole or in part, was not the proceeds of and was not used to facilitate drug trafficking activity? Answer "yes” or "no”: _ Proceed to Question No. 2. Question No. 2 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant $9,041,598.68, in whole or in part, was not involved in a financial transaction that was conducted or attempted to be conducted with the intent to promote the carrying on of drug trafficking activity? Answer “yes” or "no”: _ Proceed to Question No. 3. Question No. 3 Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant $9,041,598.68, in whole or in part, was not transported or transferred from a place inside the United States to or through a place outside the United States with the intent to promote drug trafficking activity? Answer "yes” or "no”: _ Proceed to Question No. 4. Question No. 4 Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that any one or more of the deposits to the account at Texas Commerce Bank is/are not a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000.00 in United States currency derived from drug trafficking activity? Answer "yes” or "no”: _ Proceed to Question No. 5. Question No. 5 If you have answered "yes" to any of the above questions, then answer Question No. 5. If you have answered "no” to all of the above questions, then do not answer Question No. 5. Question No. 5 To the extent, and only”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them: (6) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter [ 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.l”
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.