Richter v. Sudman’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Bennett v. United States Trust Co. · 615 F. Supp. 828 - Northern Trust Bank/O'hare, N.A. v. Inryco, Inc. · United States v. Weatherspoon · Soper v. Simmons International Ltd.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the specific acts underlying each alleged fraud varied, each served a common end____ To hold that this single scheme constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity would be to carve a single fraudulent episode into its component parts. The plaintiffs have not alleged that the defendants have engaged in similar schemes to defraud other investors, nor is there any evidence that this particular scheme is on-going or continuous. Once the defendants dispose of the investors’ funds, the fraudulent scheme comes to an end. There is no continuing threat of criminal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a corporate entity may not be simultaneously the ‘enterprise’ and the ‘person’ who conducts the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
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.