United States v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis
970 F.2d 681 · 1992
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably United States v. Haddock (1993), United States v. Ladum (1998)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 152 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986)
Relies on Pereira v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Kann v. United States · Alford v. United States · United States v. Morgan
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“came from an unlawful source as they emanated from a bankruptcy fraud.” Id. Consequently, the court upheld the defendants’ money laundering convictions. 15 . West has not alleged that he established, by proffer or otherwise, that non-FDIC employees Jack Franks, Doug Pennington, Nathan Reeder, or Philip Palmer ever had dealings with the FDIC during which they became familiar with the FDIC's routine practices. See Fed.R.Evid. 602 (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“having devised or intended to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits . . . by means of wire, . . . in interstate . . . commerce, any writings, . . . or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) knew the property involved in a financial transaction represented the proceeds of some unlawful activity; (2) conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction which involved the proceeds of unlawful activity; [and,] (3) knew the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds from the unlawful activity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hutchings
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.