Beck v. Prupis’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
139 federal appellate · 87 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 643 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr (2007), Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. (2008)
139 federal appellate · 87 district · 40 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 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Morissette v. United States · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Salinas v. United States
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 643 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ...to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity...to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.... (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen Congress uses language with a settled meaning at common law, Congress presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such case, absence of contrary direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as a departure from them.”
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.