In the 1996 case Marvin Klehr, et ux. v. A.O. Smith Corporation and A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed issues related to statute of limitations in civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) cases involving fraudulent concealment claims. The plaintiffs, Marvin and Mary Ann Klehr, were dairy farmers who purchased a silo from defendant companies that allegedly caused significant damage to their livestock due to defective design concealed by fraudulently misleading sales tactics. The court held that each instance of predicate racketeering activity within a pattern starts its own four-year statute-of-limitations period under RICO law; however, it rejected "injury discovery" rule for initiating this period in favor of an "injury occurrence" rule where time begins when injury is inflicted not discovered later on.

In the dissenting opinion for Marvin Klehr, et ux. v. A.O Smith Corporation and A.O Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Clayton Act's statute of limitations in relation to civil RICO claims. He argued that a "discovery rule" should not be applied to such cases because it would extend indefinitely the period during which a plaintiff could sue under RICO laws. Instead, he believed that Congress intended for there to be a strict four-year limit from when an injury occurred or was discovered by plaintiffs for them to file suit under these laws. Furthermore, he contended that applying this discovery rule would lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in litigation as courts struggled with determining when exactly plaintiffs knew or should have known about their injuries.