Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001

Role: applied; posture: civil; motion to dismiss granted, affirmed by CA2; certiorari; only the person/enterprise distinctness question decided; result: remanded; claim: (c)

Uncertainty

Element person: holding: what is decided is the RELATION distinct(person, enterprise), not the `person` element alone; the block stays on `person` (v1 id kept) and points at the relation through `cites`. A consumer counting `person` instances will count a relation ruling.

Element person: basis: [pleaded] for the facts, but the deciding step is a pure question of law (formal incorporation suffices); one basis slot cannot say "pleaded + law".

Element enterprise: holding: the enterprise's existence was never contested or examined; `satisfied [pleaded]` may overstate an assumption (it classifies as an instance).

Element association: role: the sentence is a step in the distinctness reasoning rather than an announced test for `association`; `rule-announced` is the nearest role.

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 (v1.1 has `decider` for who found a fact, but no source tag for "allegation" vs "conceded" vs "found").

`cites relation distinct` says which law-side relation the block instantiates, but the block still needs an element id and a holding of that element: the relation's own outcome (distinctness satisfied) is carried by the `person` block's holding by convention only.

interpretation

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

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

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

Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).

interpretation

the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present here

Under § 1962(c), a corporate defendant cannot be both the "person" and the "enterprise" (nor can it evade distinctness merely by defining the enterprise as the corporation plus its own employees/agents acting in the course of business).

interpretation

It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.

Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.

interpretation

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

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)

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

Under § 1962(c), the culpable "person" and the "enterprise" must be distinct entities, though a corporate owner/employee is legally distinct from the incorporated enterprise. Applies to § 1962(c) ("employed by or associated with"), not necessarily to § 1962(a) where a corporate enterprise may invest racketeering income in itself.