Condict v. Condict’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “A more difficult question is presented when the RICO claim is based on one scheme involving one victim, but the plan contemplates open-ended fraudulent activity and does not have a single goal that, when achieved, will bring the activity to an end. Some courts have found that such an ongoing scheme is itself sufficient to satisfy the continuity element of a RICO pattern. See, e.g., Morgan v. Bank of Waukegan, 804 F.2d 970, 976 (7th Cir.1986); see also Illinois Dept. of Revenue v. Phillips, 771 F.2d 312 (7th Cir.1985). Other courts may require additional proof showing that the defendants have engaged in similar activity in the past, or have been involved in other criminal activity, or pose a threat of similar activity in the future. See, e.g., Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252, 257 (8th Cir.1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 714 F. Supp. 460 - Raymark Industries, Inc. v. Stemple

2. “[A]ny claim under § 1962(d) based on a conspiracy to violate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), or (c) must necessarily fall if the substantive claims are themselves deficient.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tal

3. “this is but an unsuccessful effort to dress a garden-variety [state] fraud and deceit case in RICO clothing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Delmer L. Stagner v. Paul E. Pitts, William v. Wiist, Thomas Dunlap, and the Ardmore Institute of Health, an Oklahoma Corporation