Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Scheidler Vs. National Organization for Women, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 26, 2003

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

71 entries 5 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Culbert US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1978
  2. United States Vs. Enmons US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1973
  3. United States Vs. Nardello US Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1969
  4. Duplex Printing Press Co. Vs. Deering US Supreme Court · Jan 03, 1921
  5. United States Vs. Hathaway US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1866
  6. Scheidler v. National
    Search
  7. Organization for Women, Inc. - 537 U.S. 393 (2003) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus SCHEIDLER ET AL. v. NATIONAL
    Search
  8. Together with No. 01-1119, Operation Rescue v. National
    Search
  9. requirement entailed both a deprivation and acquisition of property, see United States v. Enmons
    Search
  10. respondents that they could exercise, transfer, or sell. United States v. Nardello
    Search
  11. paramount congressional concern in drafting that Act was to be clear about what conduct was prohibited, United States v. Culbert
    Search
  12. s conclusion that petitioners violated RICO. In accordance with this Court's decisions in Nardello and Taylor v. United
    Search
  13. of Montana, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw
    Search
  14. description of the factual and procedural history of this litigation, see National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
    Search
  15. of racketeering or the racketeering enterprise were economically motivated. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
    Search
  16. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that dismissal. See National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler
    Search
  17. Ibid. (quoting United States v. Stillo
    Search
  18. s right to exercise exclusive control over the use of a party's business assets.6 Our decisions in United States v. Green
    Search
  19. and Carpenter v. United
    Search
  20. of statutory language with the general presumption that a statutory term has its common-law meaning. See Taylor v. United
    Search
  21. Morissette v. United
    Search
  22. Evans v. United
    Search
  23. is mistaken to suggest that our decision reaches, much less rejects, lower court decisions such as United States v. Tropiano
    Search
  24. requirement included both a deprivation and acquisition of property. See, e. g., People v. Ryan
    Search
  25. People v. Weinseimer
    Search
  26. Congo Rec. 3227 (1943). 8 The dissent endorses the opinion of the Court of Appeals in United States V. Arena
    Search
  27. requirement of extortion under New York law entailed both a deprivation and acquisition of property. See United States v. Enmons
    Search
  28. quoting People v. Cuddihy
    Search
  29. United States v. NardeII0
    Search
  30. and acts of force and violence to dictate and restrict the actions and decisions of businesses. See, e. g., People v. Ginsberg
    Search
  31. People v. Scotti
    Search
  32. People v. Kaplan
    Search
  33. a) and 2(b). Several years after the enactment of the AntiRacketeering Act, this Court decided United States v. Teamsters
    Search
  34. Culbert, supra, at 373 (quoting Stirone v. United
    Search
  35. McNally v. United
    Search
  36. Nardello, 393 U. S., at 290). This concession is in accord with our decisions in Nardello and Taylor v. United
    Search
  37. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex
    Search
  38. the Hobbs Act has been so uniform, I only discuss a few of the more significant cases. For example, in United States v. Tropiano
    Search
  39. Stirone v. United
    Search
  40. (United States v. Provenzano
    Search
  41. United States v. Nedley
    Search
  42. (Bianchi v. United
    Search
  43. being conferred on the 414 STEVENS, J., dissenting person who obtains the property (United States v. Green
    Search
  44. of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution (Louis K. Ligget Co. v. Baldridge
    Search
  45. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering
    Search
  46. has been cited with approval by federal courts in virtually every circuit in the country. See, e. g., United States v. Hathaway
    Search
  47. United States v. Arena
    Search
  48. Northeast Women's Center, Inc. v. McMonagle
    Search
  49. United States v. Santoni
    Search
  50. United States v. Nadaline
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial