Supreme Court of the United States · 2001-06-11
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; motion to dismiss granted, affirmed by CA2; certiorari; only the person/enterprise distinctness question decided; result: remanded; claim: (c)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c); party: Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise"); subject: party=Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise") 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. | employed-by/officer-and-owner | It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [8149:8238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise"); subject: party=Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise") Enterprise is the defendant's own legitimate corporation used as "vehicle"; existence of the enterprise was not contested. | legal-entity/closely-held-corporation | the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, a corporationSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [1348:1421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.This case concerns a claim that a corporate employee is the “person” and the corporation is the “enterprise.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [8039:8148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.defines “enterprise” to include a “corporation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [7222:7270] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) Alleged only generically ("at least two instances of fraud and other RICO predicate crimes"); merits left for remand. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (c); party: Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise"); subject: party=Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise") Scope-of-authority is irrelevant to distinctness (hence [neutral]: CA2 had treated it as defeating distinctness; this Court holds it does not matter). Contrast (not decided): corporation as person + corporation-with-its-employees as enterprise (Riverwoods). | distinct-from-enterprise/sole-shareholder-employee-vs-own-corporation | 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,”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [1322:1540] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.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 nameSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [3149:3362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present hereSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [11630:11771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.we hold simply that the need for two distinct entities is satisfiedSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [13149:13216] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82. |
| /us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
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
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
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 nameSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [3149:3362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.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
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
the statute requires no more than the formal legal distinction between “person” and “enterprise” (namely, incorporation) that is present hereSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [11630:11771] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.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.
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [8149:8238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.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
/us/533/0158-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
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 nameSource:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [3149:3362] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.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.