Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States

speaking broadly and not discussing any potential distinguishing features among the language of the subsections, the court concludes that the “enterprise” and the “person” must be distinct entities throughout RICO | witness was founder, president and majority or near-majority stockholder of company for more than 20 years | “an owner of a business is competent to give his opinion as to the value of his property” | mail fraud and wire charges could be brought although conduct was also charged under False Claims Act | enterprise and individual must be distinct entities ... a defendant cannot conspire with his right arm | “We conclude that ‘enterprise’ was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as' or part of, the person whose behavior the act was designed to prohibit .... ” | antitrust defense inapplicable because enforcement of contract would not assist party to commit conduct forbidden by antitrust laws | "The RICO 'enterprise' was identified in the indictment as the Infonet Division of CSC, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of CSC itself" | “The RICO ‘enterprise’ was identified in the indictment as the Infonet Division of CSC, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of CSC itself” | the term enterprise was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as or part of, the person whose behavior the RICO act was designed to prohibit | fire equipment manufacturers lack standing to challenge OSHA fire safety regulations for the workplace | “A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may not be granted where to do so would undermine the jury’s fact-finding role and trample on the defendant’s seventh amendment right to a jury trial.” | "A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may not be granted where to do so would undermine the jury's fact-finding role and trample on the defendant's seventh amendment right to a jury trial." | unincorporated division of defendant corporation was not a separate RICO enterprise | “A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may not be granted where to do so would undermine the jury’s fact-finding role and trample on the defendant’s seventh amendment right to a jury trial.” | § 541 includes tangible and intangible property within the estate | “anticipated duress” argument fails as a matter of law | dismissal of antitrust case on statute of limitations grounds affirmed | corporation charged along with six employees | available on LEXIS, Genfed library, Dist file | enterprise may not be liable