Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 956 F.2d 560 - Vild v. Visconsi

Vild v. Visconsi’s Empirical Analysis

956 F.2d 560 · 1992

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
January 2019
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. (1996), LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority (1995)

39 federal appellate · 2 district ·

410199220002010decided

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

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Carnegie v. United States · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company

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. “Continuity is “both a closed-and open-ended concept, referring either to a closed period of repeated conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.” (citation omitted). The plaintiff may prove continuity by showing a series of past related predicates occurring over an extended period of time. A few months period usually is not sufficient. A second means of establishing continuity is to show that the predicates, by their nature, “involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity.” (citation omitted) ... A third way to prove continuity in this case is to allege “predicates [that] are a regular way of conducting defendant’s ongoing legitimate business ... or of conducting or participating in an ongoing and legitimate ‘RICO enterprise.’ ” (citation omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after [October 15, 1970] and the last of which occurred within ten years ... after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “arrangement or order of things or activity,”
    2 later decisions 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.