United States v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 1530 · 1991
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie (1994), United States v. Teague (1992)
85 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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. § 1952 · 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. § 3282 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 952
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Blockburger v. United States · Doyle v. Ohio · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Hamling v. United States
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a 'pattern of racketeering activity' requires proof of something beyond the two predicate acts themselves.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The language and legislative history of RICO indicates little doubt that Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offense. RICO's statutory language indicates that Congress sought to supplement, rather than supplant, existing crimes and penalties. Section 1961(5) provides that a: "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5) (emphasis added). This language suggests that Congress envisioned the situation where a defendant is convicted and sentenced for a racketeering act and subsequently charged with a RICO violation based on the prior conviction. This interpretation of the language of RICO is fully supported by the statute's legislative history: It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized crime in the United States by strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“being persons employed by and associated with the enterprise described in Section A of this Count; that is, the PIJ Enterprise, which enterprise engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with other persons, both known and unknown to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962 (c); that is, to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of that enterprise, through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961 (1) and (5) ....”
1 later decision 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.