Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 672 F.2d 407 - United States v. Bethea

United States v. Bethea’s Empirical Analysis

672 F.2d 407 · 1982

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably United States v. Hartley (1982), United States v. Lemire (1983)

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

2101982199020002010decided

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. § 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. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282

Relies on Pereira v. United States · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Arizona v. Manypenny · United States v. Phillips · Lascaris v. Shirley

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “to be part of the execution of the fraud, the use of the mails need not be an essential element of the scheme. It is sufficient for the mailing to be incident to an essential part of the scheme, or a step in the plot.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “integral part of the execution of the scheme”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
    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.