Douglas A. Holmberg v. Rodney C. Morrisette and Mintex Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Douglas A. Holmberg v. Rodney C. Morrisette and Mintex Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 205 · 1986
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably United States v. Kragness (1987), Deviries v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1986)
23 federal appellate · 10 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · In re Disbarment of Kleindienst · Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer · Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing Corporation
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requires more than one 'racketeering activity' and the threat of continuing activity to be effective. It is this factor of continuity plus relationship which combines to produce a pattern.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the continuity necessary to form a 'pattern' of racketeering activity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) two isolated acts of racketeering activity do not constitute a pattern; (2) it is the factors of continuity plus relationship which combine to produce a pattern; (3) the “pattern” element of the statute was designed to limit RICO’s application to planned, ongoing, continuing crime as opposed to sporadic, unrelated, isolated criminal episodes.”
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.