Posner v. United States

noting that other courts had dealt with the issue, the Court declined defendant’s invitation to re-consider the constitutionality of RICO | setting forth standards for determining “[wjhether a congressionally generated document has become an agency record” | permitting the inclusion of a group of corporations as an enterprise even though a group of corporations is not a group of individuals associated-in-faet within the meaning of the definition of enterprise | affirming under Exemption 3 district judge’s decision based upon Exemption l | in view of the broad construction of RICO, a group of corporations can form an enterprise | “RICO poses a danger of abuse [through] attempts to apply the statute to situations for which it was not primarily intended.” | RICO criminal forfeiture statute which keys forfeiture to the magnitude of a defendant's criminal enterprise, does not violate eighth amendment's proportionality requirement | for Eighth Amendment purposes, “there is no substantial difference between an in rem proceeding and a[n in personam criminal] forfeiture proceeding brought directly against the owner” | the Attorney General’s power to seize the property upon the terms and conditions set by the court provides for limited judicial modification of the forfeiture order | forfeiture is constitutional when “keyed to the magnitude of a defendant’s criminal enterprise as it is in RICO” | RICO criminal forfeiture statute which keys forfeiture to the magnitude of a defendant’s criminal enterprise, does not violate eighth amendment’s proportionality requirement | in view of the broad construction of RICO, a group of corporations can form an enterprise | the Attorney General's power to seize the property upon the terms and conditions set by the court provides for limited judicial modification of the forfeiture order | upheld enforcement of settlements under NLRA, stating "[t]o permit a party to accept the benefits of a settlement agreement, and then withdraw from that agreement without complying with its corresponding obligations, would subvert the settlement process" | per curiam on motion to vacate and petition for rehearing | upheld enforcement of settlements under NLRA, stating “[t]o permit a party to accept the benefits of a settlement agreement, and then withdraw from that agreement without complying with its corresponding obligations, would subvert the settlement process” | group of corporations constituted “association in fact” enterprise