Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States

Parentheticals

• speaking broadly and not discussing any potential distinguishing features among the language of the subsections, the court concludes that the “enterprise” and the “person” must be distinct entities throughout RICO

  United States v. Freshie Co.

• witness was founder, president and majority or near-majority stockholder of company for more than 20 years

  Michael B. Shane v. James H. Shane

• “an owner of a business is competent to give his opinion as to the value of his property”

  Elizabeth v. Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp.

• mail fraud and wire charges could be brought although conduct was also charged under False Claims Act

  United States v. Young & Rubicam, Inc.

• enterprise and individual must be distinct entities ... a defendant cannot conspire with his right arm

  Bergen v. Rothschild

• “We conclude that ‘enterprise’ was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as' or part of, the person whose behavior the act was designed to prohibit .... ”

  Joseph Rae v. Union Bank, a Banking Corporation

• antitrust defense inapplicable because enforcement of contract would not assist party to commit conduct forbidden by antitrust laws

  Allen-Myland, Inc. v. International Business MacHines Corp.

• "The RICO 'enterprise' was identified in the indictment as the Infonet Division of CSC, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of CSC itself"

  United States v. Itt Blackburn Co., a Division of Itt

• “The RICO ‘enterprise’ was identified in the indictment as the Infonet Division of CSC, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of CSC itself”

  United States v. Itt Blackburn Co., a Division of Itt

• the term enterprise was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as or part of, the person whose behavior the RICO act was designed to prohibit

  Wilson v. State

• fire equipment manufacturers lack standing to challenge OSHA fire safety regulations for the workplace

  R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and Secretary of Labor

• “A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may not be granted where to do so would undermine the jury’s fact-finding role and trample on the defendant’s seventh amendment right to a jury trial.”

  James M. Abrahamsen James M. Abrahamsen, of the Estate of Gloria Jean Abrahamsen, Deceased v. Trans-State Express, Inc. Ronald E. Reagan