United States v. Caming’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 232 · 1992
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably United States v. Rosa (1993), United States v. Scopo (1994)
28 federal appellate · 1 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 31 U.S.C. § 5313 · 31 U.S.C. § 5316 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322
Relies on United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · Cheek v. United States · City of El Centro v. United States · Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Nagac v. Derwinski
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to prove that the defendant had the intent to evade the reporting requirements, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the existence of those reporting requirements^] [s]ince a person cannot have a specific intent to evade a requirement which he knows nothing about[.] [T]hus in order to find the defendant guilty you must find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that the defendant knew of the reporting requirements of Section 5313(a), and second, that he acted for the specific purpose of evading those reporting requirements. The word willfully has been used so let me try and define that for you. An act or a failure to act is willfully done if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something that the law forbids or with a specific intent to fail to do something that the law requires to be done. That is to say, with bad purpose, either to disobey or to disregard the law. With respect to the offenses charged in this case, the requirement that the defendant acted with a bad purpose is satisfied by proof that he knew that the bank was legally obligated to report currency transactions exceeding $10,000 and that he intended to deprive the government of information to which it is entitled. The defendant’s conduct is not willful if you find that he acted because of negligence, inadvertence, accident or due to his good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a) ... with respect to such transaction'— (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.”
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.