Gentry v. Yonce’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Wright v. Craft (2006), Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co. (1999)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 48 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. § 1955 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Gregory v. United States · Reavis v. Antinore · 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island · 85 N.C. App. 669 - Harris v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An act is 'unfair' when it is offensive to public policy or when it is immoral, unethical, or oppressive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), SCRCP, the trial court should consider only the allegations set forth on the face of the plaintiffs complaint and a 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted if “facts alleged and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom would entitle the plaintiff to any relief on any theory of the case.” The question is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief. Further, the complaint should not be dismissed merely because the court doubts the plaintiff will prevail in the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person violating subsections (A), (B), (D), or (E) of this section is subject to a fine of up to five thousand dollars to be imposed by the department. The department, upon a determination that the violation is wilful, may refer the violation to the Attorney General or to the appropriate circuit solicitor for criminal prosecution, and, upon conviction, the person must be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more that two years, or both.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.