United States v. Atterson’s Empirical Analysis
926 F.2d 649 · 1991
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on California v. ARC America Corp. · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Porzig v. Nolden · Rita v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e must affirm so long as 'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' In making this determination, we look to all of the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the government. We must affirm unless the record is barren of any evidence, regardless of its weight, from which the trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“show a connection between the weapon and the offense, only that the weapon was possessed during the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Guideline governing money laundering transactions mandates a sentence enhancement in the event that defendant knew that the funds involved in the money laundering scheme were the proceeds of unlawful activity involving narcotics or other controlled substances. The district court increased Laurelez’ sentence three levels under this Guideline since Laurelez knew that the funds represented proceeds from the marijuana distribution. To then include the value of those drugs in computing the total value of the funds involved in the money laundering scheme would result in Laurelez’ sentence being doubly-enhanced due to the fact that drugs were involved in the money laundering scheme, a result we do not think Congress intended in enacting this particular Guideline.”
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.