Hobbs Act or state-law extortion predicate (18 U.S.C. § 1951; § 1961(1)(A),(B))

OR · 18usc1962:racketeering.extortion

CONTEXT_ONLY: NOW v. Scheidler (510 U.S. 249) held only that a predicate need not have an economic motive and expressly reserved whether the alleged conduct was Hobbs Act extortion. The “obtaining property from another” test from Scheidler II is not quoted or modeled in this pilot.

Exact element source

racketeering activity
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [148:169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6caae47f43b5ab0899b660616e298363bd36f9f540d915c2be11eb7126f5e27d.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
hobbs-act-extortion/non-economic-motive0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1		0No counted merits examples

Excluded context examples: /us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 — rule-announced/merits

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/us/510/0249-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1994Hobbs Act or state-law extortion predicate (18 U.S.C. § 1951; § 1961(1)(A),(B))not_reached
Excluded from merits counts
rule-announced / merits

claim: (c),(d)

Only decided: predicate acts need no economic motive. Whether the conduct is Hobbs Act extortion ("obtaining of property") was expressly reserved.		hobbs-act-extortion/non-economic-motive
In addition, petitioners claimed that respondent Scheidler threatened DWHO’s clinic administrator with reprisals if she refused to quit her job at the clinic.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [7821:7979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

predicate acts, such as the alleged extortion, may not benefit the protesters financially but still may drain money from the economy by harming businesses such as the clinics which are petitioners in this case
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [13786:13995] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Respondents contend that petitioners are unable to show that their actions violated the Hobbs Act. We do not reach that issue and express no opinion upon it.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0249-01; Unicode character offsets [19379:19536] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cb4e617ad929914e8013956e456c6d025b7f974213b9a4c541b1fdd0f9d49931.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations