United States v. Ohlson’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.2d 1347 · 1977
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably United States v. Rone (1979), United States v. Kearney (1977)
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Pinkerton v. United States · Iannelli v. United States · United States v. Clara Holte · United States v. Campanale · United States v. Rueter
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) ... clearly imports that a violation may be committed by an individual acting alone .... Neither the definition of “pattern of racketeering” nor of “racketeering activity” incorporates any element of agreement or concerted activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he applicability of Wharton’s Rule depends not on the evidence offered at trial but rather on the statutory requirements of the substantive offense. [T]he Rule comes into play only if the substantive offense is defined so as to necessarily require the agreement of two persons.””
1 later decision 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.