Lewis v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
39 F.3d 395 · 1994
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (1995), Lerner v. Fleet Bank (2003)
16 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 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. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Pemberton · First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp.
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The injuries alleged thus were neither the “preconceived purpose” nor the “specifically-intended consequence” of the RICO defendants’ acts. Moreover, ' any losses to American Express were caused only because the scheme itself was exposed and thus failed. Therefore, the harm to American Express was neither the “necessary result” of the scheme nor ... “foreseeable” ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the shareholders of American Express were certainly not the intended targets of the RICO violations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Central to the notion of proximate cause is the idea that a person is not hable to all those who may have been injured by his conduct, but only to those with respect to whom his acts were ‘a substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation,’ and whose injury was ‘reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.