Court Opinion

ID: 8954630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 09:06:38.19675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:02.828194
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s opinion because I am satisfied that this result is compelled by our earlier cases commencing with Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252 (8th Cir.1986). In Henning v. First Bank of Worthington, No. 86-5320 (8th Cir. July 7, 1987), I concurred separately and expressed my view that the multiple scheme requirement that we have grafted onto the pattern element strays from the statutory language of RICO. The Second and Seventh Circuits, and now the Ninth Circuit, as well as numerous district courts and a respected scholar in this field, have criticized our position.1
I believe, as stated in my separate concurrence in Henning, that when a proper case arises the multiple scheme requirement should be examined by the court en banc.

. See Henning, supra, footnote 5, and Sun Savings & Loan Assn. v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1987).