AND · 18usc1962:association
Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.
Exact element source
employed by or associated withSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec1962; Unicode character offsets [1601:1631] (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; 4 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (4). Excluded context examples:Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Reves v. Ernst — 507 U.S. 170 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _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. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldfine v. Sichenzia — 118 F. Supp. 2d 392 (2000) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2000 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a),(c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Weisman — 624 F.2d 1118 (1980) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Reves v. Ernst — 507 U.S. 170 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c) The Court notes "outsiders" may be liable if "associated with" the enterprise AND participating in its operation or management; whether Arthur Young was "associated with" the Co-Op is not separately decided. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c); party: Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise"); subject: party=Don King, president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions (defendant; the alleged "person"); Don King Productions, a corporation (non-party; the alleged "enterprise") Was `satisfied [pleaded]`. The sentence is a step in the distinctness reasoning (a corporate employee is naturally a "person employed by" the corporation); whether King was employed by or associated with the enterprise was not put in issue or decided. | employed-by/officer-and-owner | It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [8149:8238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82. |
| Boyle v. United States — 556 U.S. 938 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c),(d) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.
Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King — 533 U.S. 158 (2001) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2001 (18usc1962: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
It is natural to speak of a corporate employee as a “person employed by” the corporation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_533.jsonl#/us/533/0158-01; Unicode character offsets [8149:8238] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4a05c3529d1a4290e7525b1ae0fd4713c5f1ea12a0eeedd68da3f1beb58dbc82.Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.
interpretation
An enterprise is “operated” not just by upper management but also by lower rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. An enterprise also might be “operated” or “managed” by others “associated with” the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.
Reves v. Ernst — 507 U.S. 170 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (18usc1962: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
An enterprise is “operated” not just by upper management but also by lower rung participants in the enterprise who are under the direction of upper management. An enterprise also might be “operated” or “managed” by others “associated with” the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_507.jsonl#/us/507/0170-01; Unicode character offsets [21209:21518] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2419fe5704d7ee89eb2a2ed333e17382cbc6492e0021af1984bb9a47dcfe95a2.Covers both insiders ("employed by") and outsiders ("associated with") who exert control or participate in directing enterprise affairs, but excludes the enterprise itself.