·
Case and law context
Interpretation-only case: no CASE context or instance blocks recorded in this snapshot.
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
"[T]o 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.
"[T]o 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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17834:18051] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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 latter type of enterprise, an "association-in-fact," is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct and requires evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.
The latter type of enterprise, an "association-in-fact," is a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct and requires evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17447:17743] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.Turkette and Boyle govern association-in-fact enterprises: purpose + relationships among associates + longevity sufficient to pursue the purpose.
interpretation
"[T]o 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.
"[T]o 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.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/1161-01; Unicode character offsets [17834:18051] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cc9bea2fae30255ea5832b87a42b4f4094eeed54bb0faae67c52b993a3ef075f.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.