State v. Nunez’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
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)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Spies v. United States · Schad v. Arizona · Sloan v. Hicks · Reves v. Ernst & Young
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one (1) of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such inci dents occurred within five (5) years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mannos v. Moss“It is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of such enterprise by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mannos v. Moss
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.