Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• 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
• “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

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

320 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Manguno v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
  Fifth Circuit· 2002-01-08· cited 1,187×
• Dino Cinel v. Harry F. Connick, Individually and as District Attorney for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
  Fifth Circuit· 1994-03-11· cited 1,049×
• Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Walter E. Heller International Corporation, & Ronald J. Grayheck
  Seventh Circuit· 1985-01-14· cited 590×
• Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Desiderio Cartagena and Domingo Alvarez, Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Pedro N. Soto and Edwin F. Gotay
  First Circuit· 1989-08-17· cited 552×
• United States Ex Rel. Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
  Fifth Circuit· 2004-01-09· cited 373×
• James Clark v. Amoco Production Co., Etc.
  Fifth Circuit· 1986-07-18· cited 321×
• Richard D. BENNETT and Carole A. Bennett, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee
  Second Circuit· 1985-08-09· cited 318×
• Rose Bordanaro v. John McLeod Appeal of City of Everett, Edward Connolly, and Donald Bontempo
  First Circuit· 1989-04-05· cited 294×
• Ssih Equipment S.A. v. United States International Trade Commission and Stewart-Warner Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 1983-07-15· cited 288×
• Unnamed case
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-10-26· cited 254×
• Clarence E. Bennett v. Kenneth Berg, Dan R. Sandford, Jr. v. Kenneth Berg
  Eighth Circuit· 1983-07-11· cited 234×
• United States v. Rex C. Cauble, Individually and Doing Business as Cauble Enterprises
  Fifth Circuit· 1983-08-11· cited 210×
• Joseph Rae v. Union Bank, a Banking Corporation
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-02-06· cited 208×
• United States v. Lemire
  D.C. Circuit· 1983-11-04· cited 206×
• Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.
  Eleventh Circuit· 1985-04-29· cited 198×
• Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. And Harvey Shapiro v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.
  Second Circuit· 1994-07-20· cited 198×
• Sandra Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., Sandra Conway v. Electro Switch Corp.
  First Circuit· 1987-08-06· cited 193×
• B.F. Hirsch v. Enright Refining Company, Inc.
  Third Circuit· 1984-12-31· cited 192×
• United States v. Dale
  D.C. Circuit· 1993-04-06· cited 189×
• Frith v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
  S.D. Texas· 1998-03-31· cited 184×

Other cases named Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2001-12-19· cited 43×
• Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2001-09-18· cited 3×
• Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2003-10-10