Morrow v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably GICC Capital Corp. v. Technology Finance Group, Inc. (1995), 808 F. Supp. 213 - Center Cadillac, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. (1992)
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 656
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in or the activities of which affect interstate commerce 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In all averments of fraud ..., the circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Mail fraud requires proof of (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain money by means of false pretenses, representations or promises; (2) a use of the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) a specific intent to defraud either by devising, participating in or abetting the scheme.... to establish mail fraud the plaintiffs must prove: 1) that the defendants ‘caused’ the mailing, i.e., acted ‘with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary cause of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended’ ..., and 2) that the mailing was for the purpose of executing the scheme or, in other words ‘incident to an essential part of the scheme’.... ” (Morrow v. Black, 742 F.Supp. 1199, 1205 [E.D.N.Y.1990])”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.