Grogan v. Platt’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.2d 844 · 1988
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Oscar v. University Students Co-Operative Ass'n (1992), Oscar
31 federal appellate · 10 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Urie v. Thompson · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our view, the ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘injured in his business or property’ excludes personal injuries, including the pecuniary losses therefrom. As a panel of the Second Circuit remarked, ‘[t]he requirement that the injury be to the plaintiffs business or property means that the plaintiff must show a proprietary type of damage. For example, a person physically injured in a fire whose origin was arson is not given a right to recover for his personal injuries; damage to his business or his building is the type of injury for which § 1964(c) permits suit.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]ur task ... is not to decide whether the economic aspects of damages resulting directly from personal injuries could, as a theoretical matter, be considered injury to “business or property,” but rather to determine whether Congress intended the damages that plaintiffs seek in this case to be recoverable under civil RICO.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Diaz v. Gates · Diaz v. Gates“We do not hold that plaintiffs may never recover under RICO for the loss of employment opportunities. We merely hold that the appellants cannot recover under RICO for those pecuniary losses that are most properly understood as part of a personal injury claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Diaz v. Gates · Diaz v. Parks
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.