Marks v. Pannell Kerr Forster’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 1108 · 1987
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably California Architectural Building Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc. (1987), Roeder v. Alpha Industries, Inc. (1987)
28 federal appellate · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Iannelli v. United States · Morgan v. Bank of Waukegan · 615 F. Supp. 828 - Northern Trust Bank/O'hare, N.A. v. Inryco, Inc. · Lipin Enterprises Inc. v. Lee
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he multiple predicate acts by [defendants] covered a short period of time (several months) and do not take on the character of being separate and distinct schemes in time and place. The acts alleged' related to a single scheme to defraud a single victim in what appears to be a “one-shot” effort to inflict a single injury. Such a factual scenario simply fails to satisfy the continuity aspect of racketeering activity required by Sedima.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the definition of a 'pattern of racketeering activity' differs from the other provisions in Sec. 1961 in that it states that a pattern 'requires at least two acts of racketeering activity,' Sec. 1961(5) (emphasis added), not that it 'means' two such acts. The implication is that while two acts are necessary, they may not be sufficient.... The legislative history supports the view that two isolated acts of racketeering activity do not constitute a pattern. As the Senate Report explained: 'The target of [RICO] is thus not sporadic activity. The infiltration of legitimate business normally requires more than one "racketeering activity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Lipin, we stated: 32 Lipin's complaint alleges racketeering acts all designed to defraud one victim, Lipin, on one occasion, the sale of Rifco. Lipin cannot allege that the defendants defrauded another victim with similar racketeering activity and cannot allege that Lipin has been defrauded more than once by the defendants through similar racketeering acts. 33 803 F.2d at 324. The present case is also distinguishable from Marks:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Appley v. West
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.