Bingham v. Zolt’s Empirical Analysis
66 F.3d 553 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Klehr v. Ao Smith Corporation Ao (1997), United States v. Rybicki (2003)
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A necessary corollary of the separate accrual rule is that a plaintiff may only recover for injuries discovered or discoverable within four years of the time suit is brought----As long as separate and independent injuries flow from the underlying RICO violations—regardless of when those violations occurred—plaintiff may wait indefinitely to sue, but may then win compensation only for injuries discovered or discoverable within the four-year window before suit was filed, together, of course, with any provable future damages.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that neither [the decedent's wife] nor any other beneficiary can receive a double recovery .... But with the estate still in probate at the time of this damages action, it was not error to instruct the jury [not to consider the decedent's wife's entitlement, if any, as a beneficiary of the estate]. Once the amounts due the beneficiaries are ascertained in the probate proceeding, appropriate applications may be made to the ... probate court or the trial court in this case to avoid a double recovery to the beneficiaries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]efendant's argument is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that he incorrectly assumes that the beneficiaries of the estate are indistinguishable from the estate itself. An estate, of course, is an entity separate and distinct from its beneficiaries.”
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.