Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 765 So. 2d 39 - Gross v. State

765 So. 2d 39 - Gross v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

1 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably 896 So. 2d 707 - Raymond James Financial v. Saldukas (2005), 845 So. 2d 74 - Lugo v. State (2003)

1 district · 24 state decisions

200200020102020decided

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)

Relies on United States v. Turkette · United States v. Elliott · United States v. Bagaric · State v. Delva · United States v. Riccobene

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

  1. “[E]ngaging in at least two incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents occurred after the effective date of this act and that the last of such incidents occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “a continuity of criminal activity as well as a similarity and interrelatedness between these activities,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[A]ny individual ... or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.... A criminal gang, as defined in s. 874.03, constitutes an enterprise.”
    3 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.