State v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action (2012), Basil v. Vincello (1990)
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 52 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Vandygriff v. 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct one of which shall have occurred after the effective date of this act and the last of which shall have occurred within 10 years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after a prior incident of racketeering activity; and (2) A showing that the incidents of racketeering activity embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or similar purposes, results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Thus, evidence showing an ascertainable structure will support the inference that the group engaged in carefully planned and highly coordinated criminal activity, and therefore will support the conclusion that an”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in or activities of which affect trade or commerce to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
4 later decisions 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.