18 U.S.C. § 1862
Repealed. Pub. L. 95–200, § 3(c), Nov. 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 1428]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Miller v. Mallery, 410 F. Supp. 1283 (D. Or. 1976).
Miller v. Mallery, 410 F. Supp. 1283 (D. Or. 1976). “Five claims were made: 1) breach of the public trust; 2) Bull Run Trespass Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1862 ; 3) Organic Act, 16 U.S.”
Twitter, Inc. v. Merrick Garland, 61 F.4th 686 (9th Cir. 2023). “§§ 1805 (c)(2)(B) (electronic surveillance), 1824(c)(2)(B) (physical searches), 1842(d)(2)(B)(i) (pen registers or trap and trace devices), 1881a(i)(1)(A) (persons abroad); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1862 (d)(2) (mandating that appropriate recipients of a request for records not…”
Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 256 F. Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “To state a claim for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1862 (c), a plaintiff must allege that the defendant, through the commission of two or more acts constituting a pattern of racketeering activity, directly or indirectly invests in, maintains an interest in or participates in an…”
Update Traffic Sys., Inc. v. Gould, 857 F. Supp. 274 (E.D.N.Y 1994). “18 U.S.C. § 1862 (a). The Second Circuit has stated that “to state a claim for civil damages under § 1962(a), a plaintiff must allege injury from the defendants’ investment of racketeering income in an enterprise.”
Lathrop v. Juneau & Assocs., Inc. P.C., 220 F.R.D. 322 (S.D. Ill. 2004). “The Court GRANTS the Juneau Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs 18 U.S.C. § 1862 (c) claim against Juneau & Associates in regard to the “Juneau & Enterprise” (Doc.”
United States v. Brummitt, 503 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Tex. 1980). “§ 1861 , and the right of a citizen not to be excluded from jury service in a federal court because of national origin, 18 U.S.C. § 1862 . The Jury Plan in use in the Western District of Texas provides for random selection of grand and petit jurors from the voter registration…”
Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 2019 CIT 142 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019). “The question before us at this preliminary stage is this: Has the plaintiff, an American importer of Turkish goods containing steel articles subjected to tariffs imposed by Presidential Proclamation invoking Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended in 18 U.S.C.…”
Malley v. San Jose Midtown Dev. LLC (N.D. Cal. 2021). “§ 1862 alleging defendants SJMD, Peruri, and 22 Patel have violated California usury laws by attaching high interest rates to loans meant to cover calls 23 for additional capital contributions and have thus engaged in the collection of unlawful debts.”
Malley v. San Jose Midtown Dev. LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022). “21 Plaintiff asserts RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1862 . To support these RICO claims, Plaintiff 22 alleges that Defendants SJMD, Peruri, and Patel violated California usury laws by engaging in the 23 collection of unlawful debts.”
Mohammed v. Jenner & Block (N.D. Ill. 2022). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1862 . Mohammed bases his claim, in part, on Uber tracking him through the GPS of his iPhone and that he did not discover Uber had done this until February 9, 2018.”
Mohammed v. Jenner & Block (N.D. Ill. 2022). “Under § 2520(e), a civil action under the ECPA may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.”
Becker v. Warren (D. Maryland 2020). “§ 1962 (c); 2) conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1862 (d); 3) fraud; 4) civil conspiracy; and 5) breach of contract.”
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.