Cullen v. Margiotta’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 698 · 1987
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 20 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 387 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company (1987), Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1990)
115 federal appellate · 20 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Roviaro v. United States · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Wilson v. Garcia
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 387 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“claims may be considered separable [for Rule 54(b) purposes] even if they have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) multiple claims or multiple parties ..., (2) at least one claim, or the rights and liabilities of at least one party, must be finally decided within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and (3) the district court must make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay” and expressly direct the clerk to enter judgment.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e see no reason why a single entity could not be both the RICO 'person' and one of a number of members of the RICO 'enterprise.' "); Fustok v. Conti-commodity Services, Inc., 618 F.Supp. 1074, 1076 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (group of individual corporate defendants may qualify as "association-in-fact”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.