Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 F.2d 1196 - Sutherland v. O'Malley

Sutherland v. O'Malley’s Empirical Analysis

882 F.2d 1196 · 1989

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc. (1991), Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc. (1994)

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

6501989199020002010decided

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)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Vandygriff v. Phillips

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.

  1. “Mail and wire fraud are perhaps unique among the various sorts of ‘racketeering activity’ possible under RICO in that the existence of a multiplicity of predicate acts ... may be no indication of the requisite continuity of the underlying fraudulent activity. Thus, a multiplicity of mailings does not necessarily translate into a ‘pattern’ of racketeering activity.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “What a plaintiff or prosecutor must prove is continuity of racketeering activity, or its threat, simpliciter.... Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While a RICO pattern can be established, in some circumstances, by proof of a single scheme, it is not irrelevant, in analyzing the continuity requirement, that there is only one scheme.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.