Bernard Food Industries, Inc. v. Dietene Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he essence of a violation of § 1962(a) is not commission of predicate acts but investment of racketeering income.”
• “Allegations of scientér are sufficient if supported by facts giving rise to a ‘strong inference’ of fraudulent intent”
• “Allegations of scienter are [only] suf ficient if supported by facts giving rise to a ‘strong inference’ of fraudulent intent.”
• “[A] violation of § 1962(a) consists of investing income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in, establish, or operate an enterprise; the violation is not established by mere participation in predicate acts of racketeering.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).