Bast v. Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, PC’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 492 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Diaz v. Gates (2005), 274 F. Supp. 2d 86 - Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp. (2003)
10 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Reves v. Ernst & Young · Brandenburg v. Seidel · Harman v. First American Bank of MaryLand · Steyr-Daimler-Puch of America Corp. v. Pappas · Doe v. Roe
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Vincent · Brock v. Angelone“for the purpose of committing any other injurious act”. 4 . See Bast v. Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, PC, 59 F.3d 492 (4th Cir.1995) (observing that “to be liable under an expanded section 2511 theory, the appellees would have to have known, or have had reason to know, that [interceptor] had a criminal or tortious motive in creating the tapes.''); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir.1994) (stating that”
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.