Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 N.M. 347 - State v. Rael

State v. Rael’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
4
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

2 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 31 Cal. 4th 1207 - People v. Smith (2003), State v. Kent (2006)

2 district · 28 state decisions

220199920002010decided

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 · State v. Rowell · State v. Franklin · State v. Apodaca · State v. Boyer

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “'believable evidence of all the elements of the crime charged' ") (citations omitted). See also State v. Rael, 127 NM. 347, 981 P.2d 280, 284 (Ct.App.1999) ("Sporadic, temporary criminal alliances do not constitute an enterprise within the meaning of the [state RICO] act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering with the intent of accomplishing any of the prohibited activities set forth in [the Racketeering Act,]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.