Opinion ID: 458782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Racketeering injury.

Text: 18 Appellants argue that Bowling cannot recover civil RICO damages because he has not proved so-called racketeering injury--that is, injury from the pattern of racketeering proscribed by RICO, as distinct from that inflicted by the predicate offenses. This requirement, borrowed from the Second Circuit, Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 741 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.1984), is difficult to define and--in part for that reason--has caused considerable dispute among the circuits. The concept derives from the reluctance of some courts to extend RICO to ordinary fraud and breach of contract cases (as opposed to the racketeering activity of organized crime, toward which it was arguably directed). 19 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sedima to resolve the conflict. In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), the Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that a plaintiff is not compelled to show racketeering injury to make out a civil RICO claim. We are thus satisfied that the district court's analysis was correct and that appellee Bowling's RICO judgment survives this hurdle. 20