Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 571 FSUPP 714 - Guerrero v. Katzen

Guerrero v. Katzen’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2018

2 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

1701983199020002010decided

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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. Turkette · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Jenkins v. McKeithen

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

  1. “RICO does not forbid engaging in racketeering activity or even in a pattern of such activity. Section 1962(a) requires that a person receive income from a pattern of racketeering activity and that he use the income to establish, operate or acquire an interest in an interstate enterprise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the gravamen of § 1962(a) is not the receipt of funds or benefits from a pattern of racketeering activity; rather, it is the investment of such funds to acquire an interest in, establish, or operate an enterprise”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.