Connection lost
Server error
CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. KING Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporate employee who is also the corporation’s sole owner can be sued under RICO as the “person” who conducted the affairs of the “enterprise” (the corporation), as the two are legally distinct entities.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the RICO “person” and “enterprise” distinctness requirement is satisfied by the formal legal separation between a natural person and the corporate entity they own and operate, expanding the statute’s reach to closely-held corporations.
CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. v. KING Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. sued Don King, the president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Kushner alleged that King, acting as an employee within the scope of his authority, conducted the affairs of his corporation, Don King Productions, through a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The lower courts dismissed the complaint, reasoning that for a § 1962(c) claim, the liable “person” and the “enterprise” must be distinct entities. The Second Circuit held that because King was the sole owner and president acting within his corporate authority, he was legally indistinct from the corporation itself. Therefore, the complaint failed to allege the two separate entities required by the statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) permit a plaintiff to allege that a corporate employee, who is also the corporation’s sole shareholder, is the “person” and the corporation itself is the “enterprise” for purposes of liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)?
Yes. The Court held that a corporate employee, even one who is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) permit a plaintiff to allege that a corporate employee, who is also the corporation’s sole shareholder, is the “person” and the corporation itself is the “enterprise” for purposes of liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)?
Conclusion
The decision confirms that the corporate form cannot be used as a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nos
Legal Rule
To establish liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis began with the plain language of RICO. Section 1962(c) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under RICO § 1962(c), a corporate employee, even a sole shareholder,