United States v. Turkette’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1,880 federal appellate · 670 district · 438 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,765 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc (1985), Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company (1989)
1,880 federal appellate · 670 district · 438 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Turkette (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Bates v. State Bar · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Lewis v. United States
Cited together with Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Russello v. United States · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Reves v. Ernst & Young
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 5,765 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.”
299 later decisions quote this exact passage“any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.”
78 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that two or more persons agreed to conduct or to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; (2) that the defendant was a party to or member of that agreement; and (3) that the defendant joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its objective to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
40 later decisions 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.