Source: cases/18usc1962/us-533-158-cedric-kushner-v-king.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_533/0158_01/index.html
to establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different name
the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here
we hold simply that the need for two distinct entities is satisfied
defines “enterprise” to include a “corporation.”
It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.
casedsl 1
case /us/533/0158-01
name Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King
cite 533 U.S. 158 (2001)
court Supreme Court of the United States
date 2001-06-11
url catalog/cases/us/volume_533/0158_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl sha1=20efe731b5f5e0a3923708df0a19b1c6b1c9b25d chars=13627
law 18usc1962 (c)
role applied
posture civil; motion to dismiss granted, affirmed by CA2; certiorari; only the person/enterprise distinctness question decided
result remanded
element person : satisfied [pleaded]
party Don King (person) vs. Don King Productions (enterprise)
variant distinct-from-enterprise/sole-shareholder-employee-vs-own-corporation
fact @1322..1540 [supports] | Petitioner sued Don King, the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, a corporation, claiming that King had conducted the boxing-related affairs of Don King Productions in part through a RICO “pattern,”
fact @831..937 [cuts-against] | it is conceded that, in doing so, he acted within the scope of his authority as the corporation’s employee
rule @3149..3362 | to establish liability under § 1962(c) one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a “person”; and (2) an “enterprise” that is not simply the same “person” referred to by a different name
rule @11630..11771 | the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here
held @13149..13216 | we hold simply that the need for two distinct entities is satisfied
gloss Scope-of-authority is irrelevant to distinctness. Contrast (not decided): corporation as person + corporation-with-its-employees as enterprise (Riverwoods).
element enterprise : satisfied [pleaded]
variant legal-entity/closely-held-corporation
fact @1348..1421 [supports] | the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, a corporation
fact @8039..8148 [supports] | This case concerns a claim that a corporate employee is the “person” and the corporation is the “enterprise.”
rule @7222..7270 | defines “enterprise” to include a “corporation.”
gloss Enterprise is the defendant's own legitimate corporation used as "vehicle"; existence of the enterprise was not contested.
element association : not-reached
role rule-announced
variant employed-by/officer-and-owner
rule @8149..8238 | It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.
gloss Was `satisfied [pleaded]`. The sentence is a step in the distinctness reasoning (a corporate employee is naturally a "person employed by" the corporation); whether King was employed by or associated with the enterprise was not put in issue or decided.
element conduct : not-reached
element pattern : not-reached
gloss Alleged only generically ("at least two instances of fraud and other RICO predicate crimes"); merits left for remand.
element racketeering : not-reached
misfit The opinion decides a RELATION between two elements (person != enterprise), not either element alone; recorded under `person` with a distinct-from-enterprise/* variant. The .law file now declares constraint distinct(person, enterprise), but a .case block attaches only to an element id, not to a constraint.
misfit "Facts" at the pleading stage are allegations assumed true; basis [pleaded] carries that, but a `fact` line then quotes the court's paraphrase of the complaint, not a finding.