Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 453 F.3d 1244 - Tal

Tal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

160
cited by 160 later decisions
4
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

81 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Caplinger v. Medtronic, Inc. (2013), FARLEY v. CITY OF CLAREMORE (2020)

81 district · 7 state decisions

1050200020102020decided

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

Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Daniels v. Williams · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company 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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the court is permitted to take judicial notice of its own files and records, as well as facts which are a matter of public record.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Morris v. Giant Four Courners, Inc. · Armijo v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
  2. “To support the mail and wire fraud allegations, the plaintiffs must plausibly allege 'the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money or property by false pretenses, representations or promises,' and that [defendants] communicated, or caused communications to occur, through the U.S. mail or interstate wires to execute that fraudulent scheme.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. HOLLAND v. ROBERTS · 569 F. Supp. 2d 1208 - Hall v. Witteman
  3. “(1) investment in, control of, or conduct of (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Jones v. Marquis Properties, LLC · Ross v. Jenkins

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.