OR · 18usc1962:pattern
Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
Exact element source
a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1829:1863] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [135:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.a pattern of racketeering activitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1303:1337] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| predicate-acts/predicates-insufficiently-pleaded | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — not | |
| two-acts-per-defendant/boilerplate-group-pleading | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/alternative | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 8 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — applied/merits; /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — applied/merits; /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — background/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a),(c),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 | 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),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d) Pattern fails derivatively: no adequately pleaded predicate acts. Pre-Sedima/H.J. view that any two listed offenses make a pattern. | predicate-acts/predicates-insufficiently-pleaded | It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [26020:26178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.The First Count of plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed because it fails to allege at least two acts of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity and thus fails to allege that defendants engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1962.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [31169:31449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| /f3d/490/0575-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) Overlap of predicate acts between the old and new patterns is discussed only as a double-jeopardy factor; no trimming of overlapping acts ordered. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: pleaded; claim: (c); theory: two specific predicate acts per defendant; subject: theory=two specific predicate acts per defendant § 1962(c) must be established per defendant: two specific predicate acts each; lumping all defendants together fails. | two-acts-per-defendant/boilerplate-group-pleading | Plaintiffs’ RICO claim identified some, but not all, named defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [11421:11491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [8553:8617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.We also note that Plaintiffs’ RICO claim is fatally flawed because the complaint fails to adequately specify the predicate acts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [25542:25670] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.While the complaint is awash in phrases such as “ongoing scheme,” “pattern of racketeering,” and “participation in a fraudulent scheme,” without more, such phrases are insufficient to form the basis of a RICO claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [19523:19738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8. |
| /f3d/80/1293-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 | 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),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/507/0170-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | 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) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified variant | The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [18308:18462] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931. |
| /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/556/0938-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) Pattern (bank burglaries / night-deposit-box thefts) was found by the jury and not challenged in this Court. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.
/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983
It appears from the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” that any combination of two listed offenses may constitute a “pattern” for RICO purposes.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [26020:26178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
interpretation
A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).
/f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
A RICO claim must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_660.jsonl#/f3d/660/0346-01; Unicode character offsets [8553:8617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7242ae3a845a9fa3ef9d25b96ac25219b1844b6afcfbaf06badc6e8e5c6be7c8.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).
interpretation
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Count 1 alleges that, through the above-described conduct, all Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a substantive provision of RICO prohibiting individuals from conducting an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0108-01; Unicode character offsets [10704:10937] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98fe49dd88fa827938a668df226c5f2fdb334de0cbade07511388246b19d7f3c.Alternative to `debt` ("or collection of unlawful debt"). Under H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell, statutory minimum of two predicates within 10 years is necessary but not sufficient: requires relatedness + continuity (`pattern.relatedness` and `pattern.continuity`).