116 F. Supp. 2d 92 - Meng v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 22 U.S.C. § 2151 (African Conflict Resolution Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital · Miree v. County Georgia Phillips
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the shareholders of American Express were certainly not the intended targets of the RICO violations. Quite the con trary, the RICO violations were intended to benefit American Express by injuring one of its competitors.”
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.