United States v. Applins’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.3d 59 · 2011
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Cornell (2015), United States v. Archer (2011)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 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. § 3553 · 18 U.S.C. § 3582 · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Anders v. California · Pinkerton v. United States · Kimbrough v. United States · United States v. Turkette
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he agreement to commit a RICO offense is the essential aspect of a RICO conspiracy offense. You may find that a defendant has entered into the requisite agreement to violate RICO when the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant agreed with at least one other coconspirator that at least two racketeering acts would be committed by a member of the conspiracy in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise. The Government is not required to prove that the defendant personally committed two racketeering acts or that he agreed to personally commit two racketeering acts. Rather, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant agree[d] to participate in the enterprise with the knowledge and intent that at least one member of the RICO conspiracy, which could be the defendant himself, would commit at least two predicate racketeering acts in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise. In addition, the indictment need not specify the predicate acts that the defendant agreed would be committed by some member of the conspiracy in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise. You may consider the evidence presented of racketeering acts committed or agreed to be committed by any co-conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise's affairs to determine whether the defendant agreed that at least one member of the conspiracy would commit two or more racketeering acts. Now, moreover, in order to convict the defendant of the RICO conspiracy offe”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o list adequately the elements of section 1962(d), an indictment need only charge ... that the defendant knowingly joined in a conspiracy the objective of which was to operate that enterprise through an identified pattern of racketeering activity.... Neither overt acts, nor specific predicate acts that the defendant agreed personally to commit, need be alleged or proved for a section 1962(d) offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“bears the burden of showing that the requested instruction 3 accurately represented the law in every respect and that, viewing as a whole the 4 charge actually given, he was prejudiced.”
2 later decisions 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.