AND · 18usc1962:injury
Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).
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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| business-injury/clinic-operations-disrupted-by-threats | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — applied/procedural | |
| direct-injury/no-separate-racketeering-injury-required | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983 — satisfied | |
| not-ripe/secured-lender-has-not-exhausted-collateral-remedies | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 — applied/merits; /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 — applied/merits; /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 — applied/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 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a),(c),(d) Fraudulently-induced-loan injury is unripe until foreclosure/guaranty/title-insurance remedies are tried and leave a deficiency (First Nationwide v. Gelt Funding). | not-ripe/secured-lender-has-not-exhausted-collateral-remedies | Plaintiffs admit in their Amended Complaint, as well as their Civil RICO Statement, that each and every loan was secured by a mortgage and note, most of which bind the individual Sichenzia defendants personally.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [10627:10838] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.They also admit that each mortgage was insured through defendants Old Republic and/or Artesian Abstract. However, Plaintiffs have made no effort to enforce those rights prior to instituting this action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [10839:11041] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.However, nowhere do Plaintiffs allege that they made any effort whatsoever to recover their alleged losses, or even any part of such losses, by seeking to enforce any of their admitted contractual rights.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [14868:15072] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted the bargained-for remedies, which they admit are available to them, they have not satisfied RICO’s requirement of alleging damages that are clear and definite.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [11255:11456] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.As Plaintiffs cannot allege “clear and definite” damages to their business or property, they lack standing under RICO, and their RICO causes of action must be dismissed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [16721:16890] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139. |
| /f-supp-2d/926/1143-01 — United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2013 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | 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 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (b),(c),(d) Defendants framed this as causation ("by reason of"); the court treats it as the racketeering-injury question and rejects the extra requirement. | direct-injury/no-separate-racketeering-injury-required | In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that it has suffered business and property damages of $759,039.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [30293:30395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.However, this judicially imposed requirement of a “racketeering enterprise injury” seems artificial and unwarranted by the language of the RICO statute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [32442:32594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.The First Count of the complaint clearly alleges that plaintiff suffered direct injury from defendants’ alleged racketeering activity and will not be dismissed for its failure to allege a separate and distinct “racketeering injury.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [33827:34059] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c. |
| /f2d/976/1016-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/660/0346-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/507/0170-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | 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 | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: pleaded; claim: (c),(d); party: DWHO and SWHO (the clinics); NOW itself did not sue under RICO; subject: party=DWHO and SWHO (the clinics); NOW itself did not sue under RICO Decided as Article III standing (injury fairly traceable), not as the §1964(c) "business or property" element as such; recorded here because the same allegation serves both. | business-injury/clinic-operations-disrupted-by-threats | DWHO and SWHO alleged in their complaint that respondents conspired to use force to induce clinic staff and patients to stop working and obtain medical services elsewhere.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [7474:7645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [7686:7801] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.The District Court dismissed petitioners’ claim at the pleading stage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so their complaint must be sustained if relief could be granted “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [7155:7421] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.Nothing more is needed to confer standing on DWHO and SWHO at the pleading stage.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [8122:8203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
479, 497 (“[T]he compensable injury necessarily is the harm caused by predicate acts suffciently related to constitute a pattern”); Anza v.
479, 497 (“[T]he compensable injury necessarily is the harm caused by predicate acts suffciently related to constitute a pattern”); Anza v.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_604.jsonl#/us/604/593; Unicode character offsets [5466:5605] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7d2c2919066c4147ebeda30dba0ab8417dc2b1c103398f9c66191df2e5bf6392.Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).
interpretation
§ 1964(c) (creating a private right of action, in federal district court, for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter").
§ 1964(c) (creating a private right of action, in federal district court, for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter").Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_380.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/380/1031-01; Unicode character offsets [30068:30255] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88790a7a2b5207a13a0f41f4c5ea2fabac24d184e2e85a099b48bcb84714b89c.Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).
interpretation
Because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted the bargained-for remedies, which they admit are available to them, they have not satisfied RICO’s requirement of alleging damages that are clear and definite.
/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000
Because the Plaintiffs have not exhausted the bargained-for remedies, which they admit are available to them, they have not satisfied RICO’s requirement of alleging damages that are clear and definite.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_118.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/118/0392-01; Unicode character offsets [11255:11456] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7a6992301d8f07cdcfefb2ba1333ee88e7724e88e90a83145c93f1937232b139.Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).
interpretation
However, this judicially imposed requirement of a “racketeering enterprise injury” seems artificial and unwarranted by the language of the RICO statute.
/f-supp/567/1146-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 1983
However, this judicially imposed requirement of a “racketeering enterprise injury” seems artificial and unwarranted by the language of the RICO statute.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_567.jsonl#/f-supp/567/1146-01; Unicode character offsets [32442:32594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3836bc32665b8e1a72ea181c77043419d514089c013853f5fc10624d665e146c.Damages must be concrete, clear, and definite (not speculative or unripe pending exhaustion of contractual/collateral remedies), and must be domestic under RJR Nabisco v. European Community (579 U.S. 325 (2016)).
not-required
Distinct "racketeering injury" separate from the harm caused by the predicate acts (Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985))
No source quotation recorded.
not-required
Absence of an antecedent personal injury, so long as the plaintiff seeks recovery for harm to "business or property" such as lost employment (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. 593 (2025))
No source quotation recorded.