Wisdom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 district ·

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

1. “parties should not be allowed to amend their complaint without showing how the complaint could be amended to save the meritless claim”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In Re: K-Tel International, Inc. Securities Litigation Pasquale Migliaccio Creative Care Corporation Glen Reudolph Morton Kahn David Rea Henry Werres Claude Seymour Igal Mammon Neil Litton, Dr. Jerry Booth Joseph Erlich Gary Ewin Tim Murchison Stanford D. Williams Rev. R.G. Moore Murray N. Johnson Elizabeth Alpert Arthur Alves Societe Financiere Privee and Ravi Anand, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. K-Tel International, Inc. Philip Kives Lawrence Kives, Securities and Exchange Commission, Amicus on Behalf Of · 622 F. Supp. 2d 802 - MARKEWICH EX REL. MEDTRONIC, INC. v. Collins

2. “[W]e may affirm the district court's judgment on any basis supported by the record.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re: K-Tel International, Inc. Securities Litigation Pasquale Migliaccio Creative Care Corporation Glen Reudolph Morton Kahn David Rea Henry Werres Claude Seymour Igal Mammon Neil Litton, Dr. Jerry Booth Joseph Erlich Gary Ewin Tim Murchison Stanford D. Williams Rev. R.G. Moore Murray N. Johnson Elizabeth Alpert Arthur Alves Societe Financiere Privee and Ravi Anand, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. K-Tel International, Inc. Philip Kives Lawrence Kives, Securities and Exchange Commission, Amicus on Behalf Of · Brian Honn v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc Securities and Exchange Commission

3. “The pattern element “requires at least two acts of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5); see also H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 237-38 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 , 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). However, a mere allegation of two or more acts is insufficient to state a RICO claim; the predicate acts must be related and must “amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” See United Healthcare Corp. v. American Trade Ins. Co., Ltd., 88 F.3d 563, 571 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 239 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 ). The relationship prong of the pattern element is satisfied if the predicate acts “ ‘have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.’ ” Handeen v. Le-maire, 112 F.3d 1339, 1353 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 240 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 ). The second prong, continuity, can be either closed-ended or open-ended. Closed-ended continuity involves “a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time;” open-ended continuity involves acts which, by their nature, threaten repetition into the future. See H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at 241-42 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 . Multiple predicates within a single scheme are encompassed within the RICO statute as long as the relationship and continuity elements are met. See id. at 237 , 492 U.S. 229 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 , 106 L.Ed.2d 195 ; Terry A. Lambert Pl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 320 F. Supp. 2d 821 - Webster Industries, Inc. v. Northwood Doors, Inc.