DEFENSE · 18usc1962:x-statute-of-limitations
Civil RICO claims are governed by a 4-year statute of limitations borrowed from the Clayton Act (Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff, 483 U.S. 143 (1987)), accruing under the injury-discovery rule (Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)).
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Calabrese — 490 F.3d 575 (2007) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (d) Dictum: the 5-year limitation (18 U.S.C. § 3282) does not bar a RICO conspiracy resting on old predicate acts if the conspiracy continued into the limitations period. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
And the “by reason of’ language of section 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, proximate causation, and a concrete financial loss to a protectable business or property interest.
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)
And the “by reason of’ language of section 1964 requires a plaintiff to prove “but for” causation, proximate causation, and a concrete financial loss to a protectable business or property interest.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_926.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/926/1143-01; Unicode character offsets [29748:29945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21289dc912cdd3fe1c08a082d0c16baed1b869223da6aebc79966cadcfbee6ee.Civil RICO claims are governed by a 4-year statute of limitations borrowed from the Clayton Act (Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff, 483 U.S. 143 (1987)), accruing under the injury-discovery rule (Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000)).