United States v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis
605 F.2d 260 · 1979
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably United States v. Turkette (1981), United States v. Riccobene (1983)
51 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 842 (§ 402 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Bass · Iannelli v. United States · Bates v. State Bar
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any individual, partnership, corporation, association ... and any union or group of individuals associated in fact,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a passage which the government urges us to follow, the Fifth Circuit describes a “criminal enterprise” as “an amoeba-like in frastructure that controls a secret criminal network.” United States v. Elliott, supra, 571 F.2d at 897-98 . With all due respect, we think greater precision than that is required if the statute is not to violate “the first essential of due process of law” by forbidding “the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common intelligence [would] necessarily [have to] guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plain meaning of [§ 1962(c) ] indicates that the reference to enterprise was included to denote an entity larger than, and conceptually distinct from, any pattern of racketeering activity through which the enterprise’s affairs might be conducted.” 605 F.2d 260 , 266 (6th Cir.1979). 3 . The court relied on a dictum in Turkette to the effect 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.