United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · 2019-03-07
author: unavailable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no authored CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
To establish this offense, the Government must prove the following four elements: (i) an agreement, (ii) to conduct or participate, (iii) in an enterprise, (iv) through a pattern of racketeering activity.
United States v. Mills — 367 F. Supp. 3d 664 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · 2019 (18usc1962: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
To establish this offense, the Government must prove the following four elements: (i) an agreement, (ii) to conduct or participate, (iii) in an enterprise, (iv) through a pattern of racketeering activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/367/0664-01; Unicode character offsets [19235:19439] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c1d9d6c414a670823fd10c237e58626995c598f77d737836c071e0e2b2f891d1.Note tension in older or lower-court civil opinions (e.g. Goldfine) that sometimes recite a requirement that each defendant agreed to commit two predicates; Salinas controls in criminal and modern civil cases, though civil § 1962(d) still requires a viable underlying § 1962(a)-(c) violation and an overt act that is itself a RICO predicate under Beck v. Prupis (529 U.S. 494 (2000)).