Klehr v. Ao Smith Corporation Ao’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
200 federal appellate · 141 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 768 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan (2002), Woodford v. Ngo (2006)
200 federal appellate · 141 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 11 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Wilson v. Garcia · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Carnegie v. United States · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 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 768 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“each overt act that is part of the violation and that injures the plaintiff,”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n the case of a `continuing violation,' ... each overt act that is part of the violation and that injures the plaintiff ... starts the statutory period running again .... But the commission of a separate new overt act generally does not permit the plaintiff to recover for the injury caused by old overt acts outside the limitations period.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[if], as a part of the same pattern of racketeering activity, there is further injury to the plaintiff or further predicate acts occur, ... the accrual period shall run from the time when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the last injury or the last predicate act which is part of the same pattern of racketeering activity. The last predicate act need not have resulted in injury to the plaintiff but must be part of the same `pattern.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.