Court Opinion

ID: 9666778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:27:21.986616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:39.795143
License: Public Domain

GARDEBRING, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the result the court reaches today because I agree that the evidence in this case is insufficient to meet the test the court sets out for the existence of an “enterprise” under Minnesota’s RICO statute. However, for the reasons discussed in my dissent in State v. Huynh, also released to*206day, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s formulation of that test. I would adopt the more stringent test found in United States v. Kragness, 830 F.2d 842, 855 (8th Cir.1987).