State v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Alberico (1993), State v. Alberico (1993)
36 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. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on United States v. Turkette · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Ball v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. It is unlawful for any person who has received any proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in which the person has participated, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of the proceeds or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise. Whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a second degree felony. B. It is unlawful for any person to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity in order to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise. Whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a second degree felony. C. It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity. Whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a second degree felony. D. It is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of Subsections A through C of this section. Whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a third degree felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Naranjo v. Paull“(1) a common purpose among the participants, (2) organization, and (3) continuity. Sporadic, temporary criminal alliances do not constitute an enterprise within the meaning of the act. We believe the factors to be considered in determining the existence of an enterprise include the identity of the individuals involved, their knowledge of the relevant activities, the amount of planning required to carry out the predicate acts, the frequency of the acts, the time span between each act, and the existence of an identifiable structure within the association or entity.... We agree that proof of an organization is essential to establishing the elements of an enterprise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rael“[c]onspiracy to traffic by manufacturing can be proved by demonstrating one instance of manufacturing, while conspiracy to racketeer requires a showing of an enterprise and at least two predicate offenses”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Catt
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.