United States v. Sinito’s Empirical Analysis
723 F.2d 1250 · 1983
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Garrett v. United States (1985), United States v. Moya-Gomez (1988)
72 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 1952 · 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. § 892 · 18 U.S.C. § 894 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · United States v. Turkette · Green v. United States
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) time; (2) persons acting as co-conspirators; (3) the statutory offenses charged in the indictments; (4) the overt acts charged by the government or any other description of the offenses charged which indicates the nature and scope of the activity which the government sought to punish in each case; and (5) places where the events alleged as part of the conspiracy took place.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The existence of an enterprise which affects interstate or foreign commerce; (2) That the Defendant associated with the enterprise; (3) That the Defendant participated in the conduct of the enterprises affairs; (4) That the participation was through a pattern of racketeering activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he relationship requirement in a § 848 case is flexible. The defendant’s relationship with the five other individuals need not exist at the same moment. There can exist separate, individual relations with the five persons. And, the five individuals need not act at the same time.”
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.