Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 Ariz. 589 - State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell

State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

177
cited by 177 later decisions
7
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 district · 157 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 177 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1986), State v. Sweet (1985)

1 federal appellate · 10 district · 157 state decisions

7101983199020002010decided

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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Schacht v. Brown · 535 F. Supp. 1125 - Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc. · 526 F. Supp. 736 - Adair v. Hunt International Resources Corp.

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

  1. “A person commits illegally conducting an enterprise if such person is employed or associated with any enterprise and conducts or participates in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through racketeering.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The statute [A.R.S. § 13-2314(A) ] provides as follows: “A. A person who sustains injury to his person, business or property by racketeering as defined by § 13-2301, subsection D, paragraph 4 or by a violation of § 13-2312 may file an action in superior court for the recovery of treble damages and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The state may file an action in behalf of those persons injured or to prevent, restrain, or remedy racketeering as defined by § 13-2301, subsection D, paragraph 4 or a violation of § 13-2312.” The issue presented is apparently one of first impression in this state. Subsection A of the statute permits a person who is injured by racketeering activity to file a civil action for damages. The word “may” is an auxiliary verb to the verb “file” and serves to permit the private cause of action. The statute does not read “may file an action and may recover treble damages,” an inference Metro would have us draw. It clearly indicates that a successful plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney’s fees. Metro also contends that the language of subsection D, authorizing the trial court to issue any of a number of enumerated orders, renders an award of treble damages discretionary, since one of the enumerated orders is the payment of treble damages to injured persons. The introductory language of subsection D, however, states that the court “may” issue orders because orders that are appropriate in one ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]ny act, including any preparatory or completed offense, committed for financial gain, which is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state in which the act occurred and ... punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, regardless of whether such act is charged or indicted, involving •... $ $ $ # $ (p) False statements or publications concerning land for sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands. (q) Resale of realty with intent to defraud * * * * * 9f( (t) A scheme or artifice to. defraud. * * 3k * S¡C *”
    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.