53 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schlossergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Schlosser, 79 Ohio St.3d 329, 334 (1997) (“neither [the OCPA or RICO] intended to make a situation such as three robberies committed by the same person a RICO violation. 2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive | 2 | 10 |
State v. Dudas, 2008-L-109 (3-6-2009)green2 sentences2025Thus, the conduct required to commit a RICO violation is independent of the conduct required to commit [the underlying predicate offenses].” (Emphasis added.) State v. Dudas, 2009-Ohio-1001, ¶ 46 (11th Dist.). 2025Thus, the conduct required to commit a RICO violation is independent of the conduct required to commit [the underlying predicate offenses].” (Emphasis added.) State v. Dudas, 2009-Ohio-1001, ¶ 46 (11th Dist.). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Christiangreen2 sentences2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 | 2 | 2 |
Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Authority, Inc.green2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 85252, 2005-Ohio-3133, ¶ 10 ; Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (noting that failure to plead any of the elements of an OCPA claim with particularity results in a defective complaint); Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 (8th Dist.1993) (“The failure of the plaintiffs to plead these three elements with specificity mandated that the trial court dismiss the claimed RICO violation[.]”). 2020Cuyahoga No. 85252, 2005-Ohio-3133, ¶ 10 ; Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (noting that failure to plead any of the elements of an OCPA claim with particularity results in a defective complaint); Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 (8th Dist.1993) (“The failure of the plaintiffs to plead these three elements with specificity mandated that the trial court dismiss the claimed RICO violation[.]”). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2025In State v. Miranda, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio- 6314, the applicable case law for merger analysis at the time, “is not applicable to a RICO violation and that a RICO offense does not merge with its predicate offenses for purposes of sentencing.” State v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, ¶ 3 . 2025In State v. Miranda, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that State v. Johnson, 2010-Ohio- 6314, the applicable case law for merger analysis at the time, “is not applicable to a RICO violation and that a RICO offense does not merge with its predicate offenses for purposes of sentencing.” State v. Miranda, 2014-Ohio-451, ¶ 3 . | 1 | 3 |
Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co.green2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 85252, 2005-Ohio-3133, ¶ 10 ; Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (noting that failure to plead any of the elements of an OCPA claim with particularity results in a defective complaint); Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 (8th Dist.1993) (“The failure of the plaintiffs to plead these three elements with specificity mandated that the trial court dismiss the claimed RICO violation[.]”). 2020Cuyahoga No. 85252, 2005-Ohio-3133, ¶ 10 ; Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (noting that failure to plead any of the elements of an OCPA claim with particularity results in a defective complaint); Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 (8th Dist.1993) (“The failure of the plaintiffs to plead these three elements with specificity mandated that the trial court dismiss the claimed RICO violation[.]”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frostgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 2025See State v. Christian, 2016-Ohio-516, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Moulton, 2010-Ohio- 4484, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) (“‘[t]he argument that predicate offenses should be merged with a conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity has been consistently rejected by Ohio courts, on the basis that ‘a RICO violation is a discrete offense that can be prosecuted and punished separately from its underlying predicate offenses’”); State v. Walker, 2021-Ohio-4321, ¶ 33 (10th Dist.); State v. Frost, -12- Case No. 1-24-76 2020-Ohio-6920, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.); State v. Coleman, 2019-Ohio-4415 , ¶ 53-5 | 1 | 1 |
| Dice v. White Family Companies, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Salata v. Vallasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Samman v. Nukta, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| Brkic v. City of Clevelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patton v. Ditmyer, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Marinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.
green
2 sentences2014The complaint purports to set forth a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), which provides as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. {¶97} A violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) requires “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 47 2014The complaint purports to set forth a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), which provides as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. {¶97} A violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) requires “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 47 | 5 | 1992–2014 |
State v. Haddix
green
2 sentences2009Requiring the finding of a specific culpable mental state for a RICO violation obstructs the purpose of the statute * * *.” Id. at 477 , 638 N.E.2d at 1101 . 2009Requiring the finding of a specific culpable mental state for a RICO violation obstructs the purpose of the statute * * *.” Id. at 477 , 638 N.E.2d at 1101 . | 4 | 1997–2009 |
Boyle v. United States
green
2 sentences2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive 2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive | 3 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015However, in this case, we find that the RICO statute evinces the General Assembly's intent that a court may sentence a defendant for both the RICO offense and its predicate offenses. *** We hold that Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , is not applicable to a RICO violation, and a RICO offense does not merge with its predicate offenses for purposes of sentencing. 2015However, in this case, we find that the RICO statute evinces the General Assembly's intent that a court may sentence a defendant for both the RICO offense and its predicate offenses. *** We hold that Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , is not applicable to a RICO violation, and a RICO offense does not merge with its predicate offenses for purposes of sentencing. | 3 | 2013–2015 |
Kondrat v. Morris
green
2 sentences2007Kondrat v. Morris (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 198 , 209 ; see also, Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284 , 291 . {¶ 53} With regard to the alleged RICO violation, Wilson's re-filed complaint alleges only this: {¶ 54} "50. 2007Kondrat v. Morris (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 198 , 209 ; see also, Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284 , 291 . {¶ 53} With regard to the alleged RICO violation, Wilson's re-filed complaint alleges only this: {¶ 54} "50. | 3 | 2004–2007 |
State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2021Miranda at ¶ 13 ("the conduct required to commit a RICO violation is independent of the conduct required to commit" the underlying predicate offenses); State v. Beverly, 143 Ohio St.3d 258 , 2015-Ohio-219 , ¶ 5. 2021Miranda at ¶ 13 ("the conduct required to commit a RICO violation is independent of the conduct required to commit" the underlying predicate offenses); State v. Beverly, 143 Ohio St.3d 258 , 2015-Ohio-219 , ¶ 5. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2014Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 , 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). {¶99} The Dottore Plaintiffs’ RICO claim alleged that Vorys was the “enterprise,” that Vorys and its “attorneys” were the defendant “persons,” and that Vorys’s attorneys had committed the predicate acts of bribery of “Cuyahoga County officials” in violation of Ohio law (R.C. 2921.02), telecommunications fraud in violation of Ohio law (R.C. 2913.05) in connection with electronically-submitted invoices, and federal mail fraud in connection with invoices submitted by “U.S. mail” (18 U.S.C. 1341). 2014Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 , 109 S.Ct. 2893 , 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). {¶99} The Dottore Plaintiffs’ RICO claim alleged that Vorys was the “enterprise,” that Vorys and its “attorneys” were the defendant “persons,” and that Vorys’s attorneys had committed the predicate acts of bribery of “Cuyahoga County officials” in violation of Ohio law (R.C. 2921.02), telecommunications fraud in violation of Ohio law (R.C. 2913.05) in connection with electronically-submitted invoices, and federal mail fraud in connection with invoices submitted by “U.S. mail” (18 U.S.C. 1341). | 2 | 2003–2014 |
United States v. Turkette
green
2 sentences2014Both the federal and Ohio RICO statutes require an 'enterprise.'"2 State v. Schlosser, 79 Ohio St.3d 329, 333 (1997). {¶ 20} An "association-in-fact enterprise is a 'group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.'"3 Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 (2009), quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 , 101 S.Ct. 2524 (1981); Baker, 2013-Ohio-2398 at ¶ 20 . 2014Both the federal and Ohio RICO statutes require an 'enterprise.'"2 State v. Schlosser, 79 Ohio St.3d 329, 333 (1997). {¶ 20} An "association-in-fact enterprise is a 'group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.'"3 Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 (2009), quoting United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 , 101 S.Ct. 2524 (1981); Baker, 2013-Ohio-2398 at ¶ 20 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Siferd
green
2 sentences2008Instead, the state has "to prove that each defendant was voluntarily connected to the pattern [of corrupt activity comprising the enterprise], and performed two or more acts in furtherance of it." State v. Sieferd , 151 Ohio App.3d 103 , 2002-Ohio-6801 , ¶ 43 , quoting Schlosser , supra at 334 . *Page 15 {¶ 38} The United States Supreme Court has held with respect to the Federal RICO statute, that the "enterprise" must be separate and distinct from the "pattern of corrupt activity" in which it is engaged. 2008Instead, the state has "to prove that each defendant was voluntarily connected to the pattern [of corrupt activity comprising the enterprise], and performed two or more acts in furtherance of it." State v. Sieferd , 151 Ohio App.3d 103 , 2002-Ohio-6801 , ¶ 43 , quoting Schlosser , supra at 334 . *Page 15 {¶ 38} The United States Supreme Court has held with respect to the Federal RICO statute, that the "enterprise" must be separate and distinct from the "pattern of corrupt activity" in which it is engaged. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Biasucci
green
2 sentences1994United States v. Biasucci (C.A.2, 1986), 786 F.2d 504 , certiorari denied (1986), 479 U.S. 827 , 107 S.Ct. 104 , 93 L.Ed.2d 54 , citing United States v. Scotto (C.A.2, 1980), 641 F.2d 47 , certiorari denied (1980), 452 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 3109 , 69 L.Ed.2d 971 . 1994United States v. Biasucci (C.A.2, 1986), 786 F.2d 504 , certiorari denied (1986), 479 U.S. 827 , 107 S.Ct. 104 , 93 L.Ed.2d 54 , citing United States v. Scotto (C.A.2, 1980), 641 F.2d 47 , certiorari denied (1980), 452 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 3109 , 69 L.Ed.2d 971 . | 2 | 1989–1994 |
Patterson v. V & M Auto Body
green
2 sentences2021Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573, 576 , 589 N.E.2d 1306 (1992). “[A] trial court properly refuses to grant leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hensley v. Durrani, 1st Dist. 2021Patterson v. V & M Auto Body, 63 Ohio St.3d 573, 576 , 589 N.E.2d 1306 (1992). “[A] trial court properly refuses to grant leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hensley v. Durrani, 1st Dist. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2021Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed that RICO and the OCPA “were enacted to punish the enterprise and those controlling the enterprise, not the petty criminals.” State v. Stevens, 139 Ohio St.3d 247 , 2014- Ohio-1932, 11 N.E.3d 252 , ¶ 15. “[N]either statute intended to make a situation such as three robberies committed by the same person a RICO violation. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McNeal v. Durrani
green
1 sentence2021McNeal, 2019-Ohio-5351 , 138 N.E.3d 1231 , at ¶ 21. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Natl. City Bank v. Citizens Natl. Bank, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2004)
green
1 sentence2021Montgomery No. 20323, 2004-Ohio-6060, ¶ 26 . {¶63} To plead a civil RICO claim under the OCPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) that conduct of the defendant involves the commission of two or more specifically prohibited state or federal criminal offenses; (2) that the prohibited criminal conduct of the defendant constitutes a pattern; and (3) that the defendant has participated in the affairs of an enterprise or has acquired and maintained an interest in or control of an enterprise. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Flanagan v. Eden, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2005)
green
1 sentence2020Cuyahoga No. 85252, 2005-Ohio-3133, ¶ 10 ; Morrow v. Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., 183 Ohio App.3d 40 , 2009-Ohio-2665 , 915 N.E.2d 696, ¶ 27 (10th Dist.) (noting that failure to plead any of the elements of an OCPA claim with particularity results in a defective complaint); Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 (8th Dist.1993) (“The failure of the plaintiffs to plead these three elements with specificity mandated that the trial court dismiss the claimed RICO violation[.]”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bradley v. Miller
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, we observe that a finding as to venue on the issue of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) concurrently resolves the charge of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.01(A)(1). {¶ 78} In consideration of the RICO claim, we examine: (1) " 'the common purpose of the individuals involved' "; (2) " 'their combined efforts in pursuing such common purpose' "; and (3) " 'their relationship with one another.' " Bradley v. Miller , 96 F.Supp.3d 753 , 784 (S.D.Ohio 2015), quoting State v. Sparks , 2014-Ohio-1130 , 10 N.E.3d 755 , ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). {¶ 79} Oh 2018Therefore, we observe that a finding as to venue on the issue of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) concurrently resolves the charge of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.01(A)(1). {¶ 78} In consideration of the RICO claim, we examine: (1) " 'the common purpose of the individuals involved' "; (2) " 'their combined efforts in pursuing such common purpose' "; and (3) " 'their relationship with one another.' " Bradley v. Miller , 96 F.Supp.3d 753 , 784 (S.D.Ohio 2015), quoting State v. Sparks , 2014-Ohio-1130 , 10 N.E.3d 755 , ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). {¶ 79} Oh | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sultaana
green
2 sentences2018State v. Sultaana , 2016-Ohio-199 , 57 N.E.3d 433 , ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). 2018State v. Sultaana , 2016-Ohio-199 , 57 N.E.3d 433 , ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Draggo
green
2 sentences2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive 2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2018Allen Nos. 1-11-25, 1-11-26, 2012-Ohio-5577, ¶ 47 . {¶31} Under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), Appellant’s RICO charge requires proof of the following by the State: No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. -17- Case No. 1-17-39 R.C. 2923.32(A)(1). 2018Allen Nos. 1-11-25, 1-11-26, 2012-Ohio-5577, ¶ 47 . {¶31} Under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), Appellant’s RICO charge requires proof of the following by the State: No person employed by, or associated with, any enterprise shall conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. -17- Case No. 1-17-39 R.C. 2923.32(A)(1). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sparks
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, we observe that a finding as to venue on the issue of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) concurrently resolves the charge of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.01(A)(1). {¶ 78} In consideration of the RICO claim, we examine: (1) " 'the common purpose of the individuals involved' "; (2) " 'their combined efforts in pursuing such common purpose' "; and (3) " 'their relationship with one another.' " Bradley v. Miller , 96 F.Supp.3d 753 , 784 (S.D.Ohio 2015), quoting State v. Sparks , 2014-Ohio-1130 , 10 N.E.3d 755 , ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). {¶ 79} Oh 2018Therefore, we observe that a finding as to venue on the issue of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) concurrently resolves the charge of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C. 2923.01(A)(1). {¶ 78} In consideration of the RICO claim, we examine: (1) " 'the common purpose of the individuals involved' "; (2) " 'their combined efforts in pursuing such common purpose' "; and (3) " 'their relationship with one another.' " Bradley v. Miller , 96 F.Supp.3d 753 , 784 (S.D.Ohio 2015), quoting State v. Sparks , 2014-Ohio-1130 , 10 N.E.3d 755 , ¶ 31 (12th Dist.). {¶ 79} Oh | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Walgreen Co. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Hackworth
green
2 sentences2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive 2018Hackworth , 80 Ohio App.3d 362 , 365-366, 609 N.E.2d 228 , quoting Draggo , 65 Ohio St.2d 88 , 92, 418 N.E.2d 1343 . {¶ 105} We further find that the state has failed to establish Yavorcik was part of an "association in fact" for RICO purposes: To establish an "association in fact" under R.C. 2923.31(C), there must be "a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Boyle [v. United States], 556 U.S. 938 , 129 S.Ct. 2237 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 , 1276 [2009], "[M]erely committing successive | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Ashcroft v. Iqbal green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Campbell, 07-Ca-A-08-0041 (4-28-2008) neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Fahnbulleh v. Strahan green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Missouri v. Hunter green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (1-25-2007) green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| U.S. Demolition & Contracting, Inc. v. O'Rourke Construction Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Willis & Linnen Co., L.P.A. v. Linnen green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Rehab Project, Inc. v. Sarno green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pisanick-Miller v. Roulette Pontiac-Cadillac GMC, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Wiltberger v. Davis green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Flannery v. Prentice green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Service Commission green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.