Anderson v. Ayling’s Empirical Analysis

396 F.3d 265 · 2005

Citation profile

cited by 30 later decisions

April 2019

most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1512 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Beck v. Prupis · Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

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

“(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt, (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Digiglio v. U.S. Xpress, Inc. · 374 F. Supp. 3d 361 - Fleetwood Servs., LLC v. Complete Bus. Solutions Grp., Inc.
“(1) the causal connection between defendant’s wrongdoing and plaintiffs harm; (2) the specific intent of defendant to harm plaintiff; (3) the nature of plaintiffs alleged injury ...; (4) ‘the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury1; (5) whether the ‘damages claim is ... highly speculative’; and (6) ‘keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits,’ i.e., ‘avoiding either the risk of duplicate recoveries on the one hand, or the danger of complex apportionment of damages on the other.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 413 F. Supp. 2d 476 - Mehling v. New York Life Insurance · 334 F. Supp. 3d 665 - Aric D. Hausknecht, Complete Med. Care Servs. of Ny, PC v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
“the damages claim is not speculative insofar as plaintiffs claim lost wages, but it would be difficult to determine to what extent plaintiffs' job loss was due to the alleged RICO acts”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 334 F. Supp. 3d 665 - Aric D. Hausknecht, Complete Med. Care Servs. of Ny, PC v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.

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.