Marvin Klehr, et Ux. v. A. O. Smith Corporation and A. O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. (521 U.S. 179)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 19, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 521 U.S. 179 · 117 S. Ct. 1984
- Decided
- June 19, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. The petition in this case asked us to consider two aspects of “statute of limitations” law. One concerns the date upon which a civil action accrues under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the limitations period starts to run. The other concerns “fraudulent concealment,” a doctrine that extends the time for a plaintiff to file suit. In respect to the first, we focus upon, and disapprove, an accrual rule followed in the Third Circuit called the “last predicate act” rule. In respect to the second, we hold that a plaintiff may not rely upon “fraudulent concealment” unless he has been reasonably diligent in trying to discover his cause of action. I The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968, among other things, makes it a crime “to conduct” an “enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” § 1962(c). The phrase “racketeering activity” is a term of art defined in terms of activity that violates other laws, including more than 50 specifically mentioned federal statutes, which forbid, for example, murder-for-hire, extortion, and various kinds of fraud. § 1961(1). The word “pattern” is also a term of art defined to require “at least two acts of racketeering activity,. .. the last of which occurred within ten years ... after the commission of a…
Excerpt of a 27,593-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.