Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 858 N.E.2d 980 - Keesling v. Beegle

Keesling v. Beegle’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2010

1 district · 3 state decisions

3020062010decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 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 Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Reves v. Ernst & Young · Lewis v. Gober · Marbury Management Inc. v. Kohn · Hollinger

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

  1. “), an Oregon company that sold, installed, and maintained telephones and business systems. S.E.C. v. Alpha Telcom, Inc., 187 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1254 (D.0r.2002). In 1997, Charles Tummino approached Rubera and suggested selling”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “payphones to individuals who would then enter into a service agreement with Alpha to install, service, and maintain the payphones.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “engaging in at least two (2) incidents of racketeering activity that have the same or similar intent, result, accomplice, victim, or method of commission, or that are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics that are not isolated incidents.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.