Abou-Khadra’s Empirical Analysis

4 F.3d 1071 · 1993

Citation profile

cited by 47 later decisions

March 2017

most recently cited

25 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. P & B Autobody (1994), Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co. (1999)

25 federal appellate ·

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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. · Simblest v. Maynard · Sellers v. Mc Floor Crafters Inc · Air et Chaleur Sa v. Janeway

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

“Since the RICO statute does not contain any provisions concerning the award of prejudgment interest, the district court had discretion as to whether to award such interest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Aetna Casualty Surety Company v. P & B Autobody et al. · 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 - STATE OF INDIANA EX REL. ZOELLER v. Pastrick
“1. Did defendant Mahshie conspire to defraud, and therefore defraud, Abdallah B. Bseirani into believing that he was the true owner of CSE and/or the owner of a 49% interest in SPPI? Answer: Yes. 2. If your answer to the previous question is “yes”, do you find that plaintiffs suffered damages which were proximately caused by the fraud? Answer: Yes. 3. If your answers to questions “1” and “2” above are “yes”, state the amount of damages that you find resulted from the fraud. Answer: $237,500.00. 4. If your answers to questions “1” and “2” are “yes”, do you find that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against Mahshie as a result of the finding of fraud? Answer: Yes. $475,000.00 5. Did defendant Mahshie conspire with Ismail Abou-Khadra to acquire from Ab-dallah G. Bseirani a 49% interest in SPPI through a pattern of racketeering activity? Answer: Yes. 6. If your answer to question “5” is “yes”, did plaintiffs suffer damages which were proximately caused by the conspiracy? Answer: Yes. 7. If your answers to questions “5” and “6” are “yes”, what amount of damages did plaintiffs suffer as a result of the conspiracy? Answer: 237,500.00. 8. Did defendant Mahshie conspire with Ismail Abou-Khadra to conduct the operation of the Bseirani/Abou-Khadra business venture through a pattern of racketeering activity? Answer: Yes. 9. If your answer to question “8” is “yes” did plaintiffs suffer damages which were proximately caused by the conspiracy? Answer: Yes. 10. If your answers to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Bseirani v. Mahshie
“there is considerable evidence that the jury was confused as to Mahshie's liability for damages under RICO,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Abdallah G. Bseirani Agb International Management Corporation and Pittcon Preinsulated Pipes Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. George T. Mahshie, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

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.