Sec. 6. (a) An aggrieved person may, in addition to
proceeding under section 4 of this chapter, bring an action for
injunctive relief from corrupt business influence in a circuit or superior
court in the county of the aggrieved person's residence, or in a county
where any of the affected property or the affected enterprise is located.
If the court finds, through a preponderance of the evidence, that the
aggrieved person is suffering from corrupt business influence, the court
shall make an appropriate order for injunctive relief. This order must
be made in accordance with the principles that govern the granting of
injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases,
except that a showing of special or irreparable damage to the aggrieved
person is not required. The court may order injunctive relief only after
the execution of a bond by the aggrieved person for an injunction
improvidently granted, in an amount established by the court. In
addition, the court may order a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction, but only after a showing of immediate danger
of significant loss or damage to the aggrieved person.
(b) An aggrieved person may bring an action against a person who
has violated IC 35-45-6-2 in a circuit or superior court in the county of
the aggrieved person's residence, or in a county where any of the
affected property or the affected enterprise is located, for damages
suffered as a result of corrupt business influence. Upon a showing by
a preponderance of the evidence that the aggrieved person has been
damaged by corrupt business influence, the court shall order the person
causing the damage through a violation of IC 35-45-6-2 to pay to the
aggrieved person:
(1) an amount equal to three (3) times the person's actual
damages;
(2) the costs of the action;
(3) a reasonable attorney's fee; and
(4) any punitive damages awarded by the court and allowable
under law.
(c) The defendant and the aggrieved person are entitled to a trial by
jury in an action brought under this section (or IC 34-4-30.5-5 before
its repeal).
(d) In addition to any rights provided under section 4 of this chapter,
an aggrieved person has a right or claim to forfeited property or to the
proceeds derived from forfeited property superior to any right or claim
the state has in the same property or proceeds.
(e) If the state is an aggrieved person, the attorney general and the
inspector general have concurrent jurisdiction with the prosecuting
attorney to bring an action under this section.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-30.5-5.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.19. Amended by P.L.222-2005,
SEC.44.
Notes of Decisions
Keesling v. Beegle, 858 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “If the aggrieved person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she "has been damaged by the corrupt business influence," the person may recover treble damages, costs, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.”
Branham Corp. v. Newland Resources, LLC, 17 N.E.3d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “In 2011, Branham filed proceedings supplemental and new claims for relief under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, Indiana Code section 34-24-8-1 (Victims Relief Act) 1 and Indiana’s Corrupt Business Influence Act, Indiana Code section 34-24-2-6 (RICO). 2 In addition to…”
Indiana ex rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
· cites it 14× “§ 1964 (a district court may “prevent or restrain violations” of law and plaintiffs may recover damages incurred “by reason of a violation” of law); Ind.Code § 34-24-2-6 (damages may be assessed against person “who has violated” the law and injunction may be ordered where “court…”
State of Indiana Ex Rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
· cites it 9× “§ 34-24-2-6. The Indiana racketeering statute was modeled on the federal RICO statute, and the Seventh Circuit has applied essentially *981 the same analysis to both types of actions.”
Thomas Joseph Buck v. Janice Compton (6th Cir. 2023).
“§ 1964 (c) (stating that a claimant “shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee”); Ind. Code § 34-24-2-6 (permitting several types of damages, including “an amount equal to three (3) times the person’s actual…”
— Ind. Code § 34-24-2-6(a) — 3 cases
Indiana ex rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
“§ 1964 (a district court may “prevent or restrain violations” of law and plaintiffs may recover damages incurred “by reason of a violation” of law); Ind.Code § 34-24-2-6 (damages may be assessed against person “who has violated” the law and injunction may be ordered where “court…”
State of Indiana Ex Rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
“§ 34-24-2-6. The Indiana racketeering statute was modeled on the federal RICO statute, and the Seventh Circuit has applied essentially *981 the same analysis to both types of actions.”
— Ind. Code § 34-24-2-6(b) — 4 cases
Keesling v. Beegle, 858 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“If the aggrieved person shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she "has been damaged by the corrupt business influence," the person may recover treble damages, costs, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.”
Indiana ex rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
“§ 1964 (a district court may “prevent or restrain violations” of law and plaintiffs may recover damages incurred “by reason of a violation” of law); Ind.Code § 34-24-2-6 (damages may be assessed against person “who has violated” the law and injunction may be ordered where “court…”
State of Indiana Ex Rel. Zoeller v. Pastrick, 696 F. Supp. 2d 970 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
“§ 34-24-2-6. The Indiana racketeering statute was modeled on the federal RICO statute, and the Seventh Circuit has applied essentially *981 the same analysis to both types of actions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.