Computer Concepts, Inc. v. Brandt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. ““Pattern of racketeering activity” means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics, including a nexus to the same enterprise, and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents occurred after November 1, 1981, and that the last of such incidents occurred within five years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Siragusa v. Brown · 864 F. Supp. 1456 - Philadelphia Reserve Supply Co. v. Nowalk & Associates, Inc.

2. “Federal courts have taken two differing views of what constitutes a common enterprise, “horizontal” and “vertical” commonality. Horizontal commonality requires more than one investor and requires a pooling of investments. Hart v. Pulte Homes of Michigan Corporation, 735 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir.1984); Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc., 457 F.2d 274, 276-77 (7th Cir.), cert den. 409 U.S. 887 , 93 S.Ct. 113 , 34 L.Ed.2d 144 (1972). [[Image here]] Vertical commonality has, in turn, been defined in more than one way. Some courts hold that the investor need prove only dependence on promoter expertise. Taylor v. Bear Stearns & Co., 572 F.Supp. 667, 671 (N.D.Ga.1983); Alvord v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 485 F.Supp. 848, 853 (D.Conn.1980). Others require a showing that the investment is interwoven with and dependent on the fortunes of others, so that the investor and the promoter can be said to conduct a common venture. Brodt v. Bache & Co., Inc., 595 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1978). A variation of the latter vertical commonality test requires that the fortunes of the investor and the promoter be intertwined as to both profit and loss. Kaplan v. Shapiro, 655 F.Supp. 336, 341 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Mechigian v. Art Capital Corp., 612 F.Supp. 1421, 1427 (S.D.N.Y.1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reber

3. “O.R.S. 166.720 provides, in relevant part: (1) It is unlawful for any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived ... from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest ... any part of the proceeds, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the ... operation of any enterprise. (3) It is unlawful for any person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate ... in such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Newman v. Comprehensive Care Corp.