Hartz v. Friedman’s Empirical Analysis
919 F.2d 469 · 1990
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc. (1991), Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc. (1994)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1346 · 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)
Relies on Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · United States v. Turkette · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · McNally v. United States · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mail fraud 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 (here, the mailings) may be no indication of the requisite continuity of the underlying fraudulent activity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“We must evaluate the arguments that the appellants actually made, and not the arguments they could have made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the result is foreordained by the lack of substance to the appellant's arguments.”
2 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.