Gamboa v. Velez’s Empirical Analysis

457 F.3d 703 · 2006

Citation profile

cited by 34 later decisions

November 2019

most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc. · Morgan v. Bank of Waukegan · Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz

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

“Restated, when, as here, a complaint explicitly presents a distinct and non-reoccurring scheme with a built-in termination point and provides no indication that the perpetrators have engaged or will engage in similar misconduct, the complaint does not sufficiently allege continuity for § 1962(c) purposes even if the purported scheme takes several years to unfold, involves a variety of criminal acts, and targets more than one victim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. US Airline Pilots Ass'n v. AWAPPA, LLC · 904 F. Supp. 2d 855 - Borich v. BP, P.L.C.
“is a unique cause of action that is concerned with eradicating organized, long-term, habitual criminal activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Miller v. Marriott Int'l LLC · 758 F. Supp. 2d 737 - Sims v. HUMANE SOC. OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INDIANA
“‘Continuity’ is both a closed-and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition .... A party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by providing a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time. Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement: Congress was concerned in RICO with long-term criminal conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 904 F. Supp. 2d 855 - Borich v. BP, P.L.C.

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.