DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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. § 1965 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 659
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pattern is not formed by “sporadic activity,” ... and a person cannot be subjected to [RICO] sanctions ... simply for committing two widely separated and isolated criminal offenses.... Instead, [t]he term “pattern” itself requires the showing of a relationship between the predicates ... and of the threat of continuing activity.... It is this factor of continuity plus relationship which combines to produce a pattern .... RICO’s legislative history reveals Congress’ intent that to prove a pattern of racketeering activity a plaintiff or prosecutor must show that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nastro v. D'ONOFRIO
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.