DEFENSE · 18usc1962:x-parol-evidence-rule
Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.
Exact element source
It shall be unlawful for any personSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [33:68] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not · law (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — not · law (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (c),(d) Rests on a month-old change in California law (Riverisland overruling Pendergrass); court does not decide whether a state parol evidence rule could ever limit a federal RICO claim. | state-evidence-rule/does-not-bar-fraud-based-rico-claim | Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [41428:41566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Because plaintiffs bring RICO claims grounded in fraud — not claims for breach of contract — evidence related to their claims is plainly not barred by the parol evidence rule.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [42849:43024] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America — 926 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (2013) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Generally, the parol evidence rule does not act to bar extrinsic evidence related to a fraud claim rather than a breach of contract claim.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [41428:41566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Rejected as a bar to mail/wire fraud RICO predicates sounding in tort rather than contract enforcement.