9 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gilmore v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences2025Essential to a RICO claim is a pattern of racketeering activity, meaning “two or more” predicate “acts of organized unlawful activity or conduct.” Gilmore v. Gilmore, 229 N.C. 2025Essential to a RICO claim is a pattern of racketeering activity, meaning “two or more” predicate “acts of organized unlawful activity or conduct.” Gilmore v. Gilmore, 229 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Victor Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Incgreen2 sentences2025See Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 543 (3d Cir. 2012) (concluding, under federal law, that “a single predicate act is not a pattern of predicate acts and therefore cannot support a RICO claim”). 2025See Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 543 (3d Cir. 2012) (concluding, under federal law, that “a single predicate act is not a pattern of predicate acts and therefore cannot support a RICO claim”). | 1 | 1 |
US Airline Pilots Ass'n v. AWAPPA, LLCgreen1 sentence2019To state a civil RICO claim, Defendants must allege that Plaintiffs “engaged in, or conspired to engage in, a pattern of racketeering activity.” US Airline Pilots Ass’n v. AWAPPA, LLC, 615 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Ass’n, 248 N.C. 2019See Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners Ass’n, 248 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Bettisgreen1 sentence2017Taylor , 976 F.Supp.2d at 736 ("Under Plaintiffs' logic, any attorney daring to serve as defense counsel to a defendant named in a RICO action automatically could be named as a RICO defendant himself. | 1 | 1 |
Hoke v. EF HUTTON AND CO., INC.green2 sentences2015App. 159, 162-63 , 370 S.E.2d 857, 859-60 (1988) (requiring actual reliance on the “predicate act” alleged in a complaint to establish proximate cause for federal RICO claim). 2015App. 159, 162-63 , 370 S.E.2d 857, 859-60 (1988) (requiring actual reliance on the “predicate act” alleged in a complaint to establish proximate cause for federal RICO claim). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Haregreen1 sentence2006App. 358, 361 , 337 S.E.2d 632, 634 (1985). {29} In this case, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’ attempt to assert a state RICO claim under Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes would be futile under the facts as alleged in the proposed Amended Complaint. | 1 | 1 |
Richard Rylewicz, Thomas Cummings and Barbara Cummings v. Beaton Services, Ltd.green2 sentences1996Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1990) (loss of security and peace of mind due to cancellation of insurance policy not actionable); Rylewicz v. Beaton Services, Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1179-1180 (7th Cir. 1989) (no cognizable RICO claim where harassment and intimidation directed against certain litigants in an effort to have them settle lawsuit). 1996Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1990) (loss of security and peace of mind due to cancellation of insurance policy not actionable); Rylewicz v. Beaton Services, Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1179-1180 (7th Cir.1989) (no cognizable RICO claim where harassment and intimidation directed against certain litigants in an effort to have them settle lawsuit). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 548762green2 sentences1996Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1990) (loss of security and peace of mind due to cancellation of insurance policy not actionable); Rylewicz v. Beaton Services, Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1179-1180 (7th Cir. 1989) (no cognizable RICO claim where harassment and intimidation directed against certain litigants in an effort to have them settle lawsuit). 1996Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1990) (loss of security and peace of mind due to cancellation of insurance policy not actionable); Rylewicz v. Beaton Services, Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1179-1180 (7th Cir.1989) (no cognizable RICO claim where harassment and intimidation directed against certain litigants in an effort to have them settle lawsuit). | 1 | 1 |
Zerman v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.green1 sentence1988F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 628 F. Supp. 1509, 1512 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) where on similar facts the court stated: [T]he allegation that Hutton engaged in an overdrafting scheme can not serve as a predicate act for plaintiffs RICO claim (based on misrepresentations regarding the purchase of securities) because there is no relation between plaintiffs claim and the check overdrafting .... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strates Shows, Inc. v. Amusements of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In Strates Shows, Inc. v. Amusements of Am., Inc., 379 F.Supp.2d 817 (E.D.N.C. 2005), 2 plaintiff brought a federal RICO claim alleging that it was not awarded a state fair contract as a result of the defendants’ racketeering activity. 2013In Strates Shows, Inc. v. Amusements of Am., Inc., 379 F.Supp.2d 817 (E.D.N.C. 2005), 2 plaintiff brought a federal RICO claim alleging that it was not awarded a state fair contract as a result of the defendants’ racketeering activity. | 2 | 2007–2013 |
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro
neutral
2 sentences2013RICO claim because there is no “legally significant distinction” between the state and federal injury to business or property provisions), aff’d per curiam, 347 N.C. 342 , 493 S.E.2d 416 (1997). 2013RICO claim because there is no “legally significant distinction” between the state and federal injury to business or property provisions), aff’d per curiam, 347 N.C. 342 , 493 S.E.2d 416 (1997). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
green
2 sentences2007Ed. 2d 532, 544 (1992), the United States Supreme Court “held that a plaintiff may sue under § 1964(c) only if *462 the alleged RICO violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anza, 547 U.S. at 453 , 164 L. 2007Ed. 2d 532, 544 (1992), the United States Supreme Court “held that a plaintiff may sue under § 1964(c) only if *462 the alleged RICO violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.” Anza, 547 U.S. at 453 , 164 L. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Neuse River Foundation, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007In order for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a claim, the plaintiff must establish three elements: “(1) ‘injury in fact’ — an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.