Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation, 547 U.S. 451 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, relying on Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, held that to establish standing under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) provision that creates a civil cause of action for any person or entity injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was the direct victim of the defendant's RICO violation (e.g., a business may not sue a competitor that may have gained a competitive advantage by not paying taxes). The Court explained that this construction will save district courts from the difficulty of determining an indirect victim's damages caused by attenuated conduct.
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation | |
---|---|
Argued March 27, 2006 Decided June 5, 2006 | |
Full case name | Joseph Anza, et al., Petitioners v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation |
Docket no. | 04-433 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 451 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1991; 164 L. Ed. 2d 720; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4510; 74 U.S.L.W. 4278; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 218 |
Case history | |
Prior | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Holding | |
The plaintiff lacks standing because it was not directly injured by the defendant. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Alito; Thomas (Part III) |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Concur/dissent | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Breyer |
Laws applied | |
18 U.S.C. 1964(c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act |