HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
22 F.3d 41 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank (1995), GICC Capital Corp. v. Technology Finance Group, Inc. (1995)
15 federal appellate · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 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 Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Bibby v. United States · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco · Costarelli v. Massachusetts
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Reference to treble damages and attorneys fees is irrelevant to the jury questions of liability and damages and may tend to confuse or prejudice a jury into reducing its eventual award ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]very authority brought to this court's attention upholds excluding references to trebling ... in the RICO context.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“HBE II "). HBE Leasing Corp. and other leasing companies had entered into agreements with Frank whereby the leasing companies would purchase and lease back what they thought were new egg-harvesting machines to Frank, who operated large chicken farms. The leasing companies eventually discovered, after Frank stopped making lease payments, "that no actual equipment was ever purchased or installed, and that the entire leasing arrangement was a sham concocted”
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.