The U.S. Supreme Court case Agency Holding Corp. et al. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 1986 revolved around the issue of determining the correct statute of limitations for civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) cases, a law primarily aimed at combating organized crime in America. The plaintiffs, Malley-Duff & Associates Inc., filed a lawsuit against Agency Holding Corporation alleging violations under RICO statutes but were initially dismissed by lower courts due to exceeding state-imposed time limits for such claims. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court level, it was ruled that federal rather than state laws should provide the appropriate timeframe for initiating these lawsuits - specifically referencing Clayton Antitrust Act's four-year limit as an analogous guideline suitable to apply in this context given their similar purpose and structure with RICO provisions. This decision effectively established a uniform nationwide standard on when legal action can be taken under civil RICO charges thereby providing clarity and consistency across jurisdictions while also ensuring victims have ample opportunity to seek redress from alleged racketeering activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the Court's decision to apply a four-year statute of limitations from Clayton Act cases to RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) cases was inappropriate due to fundamental differences between these two types of legal actions. He contended that while both laws were designed with anti-trust purposes in mind, their applications are vastly different - Clayton Act primarily targets business practices affecting competition whereas RICO is aimed at organized crime activities infiltrating legitimate businesses. Therefore, he believed it was incorrect for the majority to assume Congress intended identical limitation periods for such distinct statutes without explicit legislative direction indicating so. Furthermore, Justice Stevens expressed concern over potential unfairness resulting from this ruling as defendants could be held liable under RICO long after they would have been safe from prosecution under state law.