McIntyre v. Okurowski’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2010
6 district · 1 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1102 (§ 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Donovan v. Dillingham · Roeder v. Alpha Industries, Inc. · Schofield v. First Commodity Corp. of Boston · Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[TJhis court rules that [section] 1962(a) provides a cause of action only for injuries arising from the actual use or investment of racketeering income, and not for injuries arising from the underlying racketeering activity. Focusing on the operative verbs, [section] 1962(a) makes it unlawful for a person to “use or invest” income derived through racketeering activity in the acquisition of an interest in an enterprise. The gravamen of the offense under [section] 1962(a) is not the racketeering activity itself, but the subsequent use and investment of the proceeds. Unlike [section] 1962(c), a pattern of racketeering activity alone does not establish an offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) provides a private right of action to persons injured “by reason of a violation of section 1962.” To state a claim ... for violation of [section] 1962(a), a plaintiff must allege that he or she “was injured by the violation there defined,” which is the use or investment of income derived from racketeering.”
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.