United States v. Boylan’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 359 · 1980
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Bagaric (1983)
41 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 6103 · 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 26 U.S.C. § 7206 · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Whalen v. United States · United States v. National Bank · United States v. Rone · Grimes 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is nothing in the RICO statutory scheme which would suggest that Congress intended to preclude separate convictions or consecutive sentences for a RICO offense and the underlying or predicate crimes which make up the racketeering pattern. The racketeering statutes were designed primarily as an additional tool for the prevention of racketeering activity, which consists in part of the commission of a number of other crimes. The Government is not required to make an election between seeking a conviction under RICO, or prosecuting the predicate offenses only. Such a requirement would nullify the intent and effect of the RICO prohibitions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in ... interstate ... commerce, to conduct or participate in ... such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The language and legislative history of RICO indicates little doubt that Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offense. RICO's statutory language indicates that Congress sought to supplement, rather than supplant, existing crimes and penalties. Section 1961(5) provides that a: "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5) (emphasis added). This language suggests that Congress envisioned the situation where a defendant is convicted and sentenced for a racketeering act and subsequently charged with a RICO violation based on the prior conviction. This interpretation of the language of RICO is fully supported by the statute's legislative history: It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.”
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.