Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.
- Decided
- July 1, 1985
- Docket
- 84-648
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,595 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.
What later courts said
- holding that private actions under RICO do not require a criminal conviction on the underlying predicate offenses — Roma Construction Company and Peter Zanni v. Ralph R. Arusso (1996)
- holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth." — In Re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC (2010)
- holding that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (2000 — Itin v. Ungar (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*481] Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968, provides a private civil action to recover treble damages for injury “by reason of a violation of” its substantive provisions. 18 U. S. C. § 1964(c). The initial dormancy of this provision and its recent greatly increased utilization[1] are now familiar history.[2] In response to what it perceived to be misuse of civil RICO by private plaintiffs, the court below construed § 1964(c) to permit private actions only against defendants who had been convicted on criminal charges, and only where there had occurred a “racketeering injury.” While we understand the court’s concern over the consequences of an unbridled reading of the statute, we reject both of its holdings.
I-H RICO takes aim at “racketeering activity,” which it defines as any act “chargeable” under several generically described state criminal laws, any act “indictable” under numerous specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud, and any “offense” involving bankruptcy or securities [*482] fraud or drug-related activities that is “punishable” under federal law. § 1961(1).[3] Section 1962, entitled “Prohibited Activities,” outlaws the use of income derived from a “pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce; the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in an enterprise “through” a pattern of racketeering activity; [*483] conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; and conspiring to violate any of these provisions.[4]
Statutes cited
Cite this
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.