# Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. > Supreme Court of the United States · June 5, 2006 · 547 U.S. 451 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434942 ## Case - **Full name:** ANZA Et Al. v. IDEAL STEEL SUPPLY CORP. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 5, 2006 - **Citations:** 547 U.S. 451; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 218; 74 U.S.L.W. 4278; 126 S. Ct. 1991; 164 L. Ed. 2d 720; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4510 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer - **Cited by:** 577 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434942 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a causal connection between reduced market prices and defendant's fraudulent activity because prices could be lowered "for any number of reasons unconnected to the asserted pattern of fraud," such as "a cash inflow from some … - holding that proximate cause did not exist because the harm and violation were not sufficiently related and explaining that the defendant "could have lowered its prices for any number of reasons unconnected to the asserted pattern of fraud,” that the defendant's "lowering of p… - finding discontinuity between the RICO violation and the asserted injury, explaining that the plaintiff’s “lost sales could have resulted from factors other than the [defendant’s] alleged acts of fraud” and that “[b]usinesses lose and gain customers for many reasons, and it wo… - holding that in evaluating whether the proximate causation element established in Holmes is met, “the central question [a court] must ask is whether the alleged violation led directly to the 5 plaintiff’s injuries,” and declining to “broaden the universe of actionable harms to… - finding no proximate cause where, to calculate the plaintiff's damages from the defendant's fraud, a court would have calculate both the portion of the defendant's price reduction "attributable to the alleged pattern of racketeering activity" and the portion of the plaintiff's… ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court. I also note that it is inconceivable that the injury alleged in the 18 U. S. C. § 1962 (c) claim at issue here is within the zone of interests protected by the RICO cause of action for fraud perpetrated upon New York State. See Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U. S. 258, 286-290 (1992) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434942. Public record. Not legal advice.