42 U.S.C. § 1961
Repealed. Pub. L. 95–467, title IV, § 410(a), Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1316
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Ronnie Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006).
Ronnie Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006). “1 Evans’ initial complaint, along with a first amended complaint, were dismissed in part, and a second amended complaint was thereafter filed 2 alleging inter alia that: the named officers violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 42 U.S.C. §…”
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 656 F. Supp. 49 (S.D. Ohio 1986). “§§ 1341 , 1343 and is, therefore, racketeering activity as defined -by RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) and prohibited by § 1962.”
Jean Hart as Adm'x of the Est. of Levi Hart v. Richard W. Bourque, Jr., 798 F.2d 519 (1st Cir. 1986). “With the law uncertain, the amount uncertain, and our unfavorable reaction to plaintiff’s making and insisting upon such extraordinary fee claims, we reject a multiplier altogether. This brings us to the subject of prejudgment interest that the court ultimately added to the fee…”
Bays v. Hunter Sav. Ass'n, 539 F. Supp. 1020 (S.D. Ohio 1982). “§ 1341 , and is, therefore, racketeering activity as defined by RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1961 (1), and prohibited by § 1962.”
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 741 (M.D. Penn. 2012). “1993) involved a claim brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. which explicitly provided for review of the administrator’s action “by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in which such…”
Evans, Ronnie v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2006). “1 Evans’ initial complaint, along with a first amended complaint, were dismissed in part, and a second amended complaint was thereafter filed2 alleging inter alia that: the named officers violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 42 U.S.C. §…”
Randolph Watterson v. Woody Burgess (4th Cir. 2018). “§ 1983 (2012), under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (2012), and under North Carolina state law.”
Ates v. United States (E.D.N.Y 2020). “The Complaint Fails to Allege a Plausible Claim for Relief Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1961 , 1983, 1985 and 18 U.S.”
Herman Eugene Paulson (Bankr. D.S.D. 2016). “§ 157 (b)(2)(B), and 42 U.S.C. § 1961 . He argued his bankruptcy case was "definitely caused by illegal behavior by the defendants under color of state law and in concert with a large portion of the South Dakota legal system," and he believes the state court judgments are void…”
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.