(a) The General Assembly finds that a severe problem is posed in this State by the increasing organization among certain unlawful elements and the increasing extent to which organized unlawful activities and funds acquired as a result of organized unlawful activity are being directed to and against the legitimate economy of the State.
(b) The General Assembly declares that the purpose and intent of this Chapter is: to deter organized unlawful activity by imposing civil equitable sanctions against this subversion of the economy by organized unlawful elements; to prevent the unjust enrichment of those engaged in organized unlawful activity; to restore the general economy of the State all of the proceeds, money, profits, and property, both real and personal of every kind and description which is owned, used or acquired through organized unlawful activity by any person or association of persons whether natural, incorporated or unincorporated in this State; and to provide compensation to private persons injured by organized unlawful activity. It is not the intent of the General Assembly to in any way interfere with the attorney-client relationship.
(c) It is not the intent of the General Assembly that this Chapter apply to isolated and unrelated incidents of unlawful conduct but only to an interrelated pattern of organized unlawful activity, the purpose or effect of which is to derive pecuniary gain. Further, it is not the intent of the General Assembly that legitimate business organizations doing business in this State, having no connection to, or any relationship or involvement with organized unlawful elements, groups or activities be subject to suit under the provisions of this Chapter. (1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 999, s. 1; 1989, c. 489, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 475 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 34× “Ross to preside over all proceedings in this action. By order signed 15 May 1995, Judge Ross granted defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' NC RICO claim.”
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 748 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-2(c) (2011). “[T]o state a claim under the NC RICO Act, (1) an ‘innocent person’ must allege (2) an injury or damage to his business or property (3) by reason of two or more acts of organized unlawful activity or conduct, (4) one of which is something…”
Taylor v. Bettis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D.N.C. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Credit Repair Organization Act Plaintiffs also allege a claim against the E & D Defendants for violations of the Credit Repair Organization Act (“CROA”), 15 U.”
State Ex Rel. Thornburg v. House & Lot, 432 S.E.2d 684 (N.C. 1993).
· cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 75D-2 (emphasis added). The North Carolina General Assembly's intent in enacting the RICO Act is clear.”
Delk v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 615 (W.D.N.C. 2002).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-2(c). The definition in § 75D-3(b) sets forth the minimum requirements for finding that a person has engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity;” however, the term “organized unlawful conduct” better encapsulates what is required to say that someone has…”
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 493 S.E.2d 416 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 3× “The Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs had failed to establish a causal nexus between PALG’s pecuniary gain, as required by N.C.G.S. § 75D-2(c), and defendants’ alleged organized unlawful activity, as prohibited by N.”
Puckett v. Kpmg, LLP 2006 Ncbc 19 (11/15/06, Amended 11/16/06) (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 3× “The legislature, however, also chose to limit the remedy of a private action by making it unavailable in cases where all of the alleged acts of racketeering activity are also: (a) indictable as wire or mail fraud (regardless of the scope or purpose of the unlawful activity); or…”
State ex rel. Thornburg v. Tavern, 384 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Section 75D is clear and is described specifically in Section 75D-2. That purpose is not punishment for a criminal act but is instead to deter unlawful activity, to prevent unjust enrichment, to restore to the lawful economy means of production unlawfully diverted therefrom, and…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-2(b) — 4 cases
Taylor v. Bettis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D.N.C. 2013).
“Credit Repair Organization Act Plaintiffs also allege a claim against the E & D Defendants for violations of the Credit Repair Organization Act (“CROA”), 15 U.”
Puckett v. Kpmg, LLP 2006 Ncbc 19 (11/15/06, Amended 11/16/06) (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2006).
“The legislature, however, also chose to limit the remedy of a private action by making it unavailable in cases where all of the alleged acts of racketeering activity are also: (a) indictable as wire or mail fraud (regardless of the scope or purpose of the unlawful activity); or…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-2(c) — 7 cases
Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 475 S.E.2d 247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
“Ross to preside over all proceedings in this action. By order signed 15 May 1995, Judge Ross granted defendants' motions for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' NC RICO claim.”
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 748 S.E.2d 42 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
“” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75D-2(c) (2011). “[T]o state a claim under the NC RICO Act, (1) an ‘innocent person’ must allege (2) an injury or damage to his business or property (3) by reason of two or more acts of organized unlawful activity or conduct, (4) one of which is something…”
Delk v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 179 F. Supp. 2d 615 (W.D.N.C. 2002).
“N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75D-2(c). The definition in § 75D-3(b) sets forth the minimum requirements for finding that a person has engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity;” however, the term “organized unlawful conduct” better encapsulates what is required to say that someone has…”
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.