Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
937 F.2d 899 · 1991
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 24 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. (1993), Joseph Maio (2000)
44 federal appellate · 24 district · 11 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 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Wilson v. Garcia
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress’ apparent unwillingness to allow recovery for personal injuries under RICO appears to be consistent with enacting RICO and its specific intention to thwart the organized criminal invasion and acquisition of legitimate business enterprises and property. Ample law already existed to provide recovery for wrongfully inflicted personal injuries. The unavailability of a civil RICO treble damages action for personal injuries in no way restricts the plaintiffs right to bring a pendent state wrongful death or personal injury action along with a RICO action for damages to business and property. We discern no injustice in limiting a RICO plaintiffs recovery for his per- We thus refuse to enlarge Congress’ specific limitation of RICO recovery to business and property. The significance of section 1964(c)’s plain language is clear: RICO plaintiffs may recover damages for harm to business and property only, not physical and emotional injuries due to harmful exposure to toxic waste.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“overall purpose [was] to thwart the generalized harm wrought by racketeering activity, its dependence on statutory crimes, and the mandatory provision for treble damages are sufficient evidence of Congress' intention that the treble damages provision serve a predominantly punitive purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the limitations period begins to run from the time when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the section 1983 action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.