Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie
Citation: 30 F.3d 1347Docket: Nos. 91-7215, 92-6218
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; August 19, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The opinion issued on April 5, 1994, is modified regarding the legal interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Specifically, the second paragraph of section II.B.1.b is revised to clarify that it is unlawful for any person associated with an enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to conduct the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. USX contended that it could not be both the “person” and the “enterprise” under § 1962(c). However, the plaintiffs allege that USX managed the affairs of the Fairfield Works, the Union, District 36 of the Union, and the Fund through racketeering, not its own affairs. The ruling affirms that the pension fund is a separate enterprise from USX, supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation that an enterprise includes any associated group. The decision references the case of Davis v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, where an insurance agency was deemed a distinct entity from its parent insurance company. The pension fund in this case is characterized as even more distinct from USX, having its own corporate existence as a nonprofit, independent governance, and regulations. The roles of both USX and its employees within the pension fund are distinct from their roles within the corporation. The final sentence in the third paragraph of section II.B.3.a is also deleted. The petitions for rehearing are denied, and there was no request for a poll on rehearing en banc.