green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1987 ·
…the rico 'enterprise' was identified in the indictment as the infonet division of csc, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of csc itself
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. James Sutton Regan, Jack Z. Rabinowitz, Steven Barry Smotrich, Charles M. Zarzecki, Paul A. Berkman, and Bruce Lee Newberg
(2×)
But see United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 , 1187-88 n. 13 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Wedtech Corp.
This approach to subsection (a) thus makes the corporation-enterprise liable under RICO when the corporation is actually the direct or indirect beneficiary of the pattern of *287 racketeering activity, but not when it is merely the victim, prize, or passive instrument of racketeering ... which result is in accord with the primary purpose of RICO ... to reach those who ultimately profit from racketeering, not those who are victimized by it.’ ” (quoting Haroco, 747 F.2d at 402 )); United States v. Hartley, 678 F.2d 961 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1170 , 103 S.Ct. 815 , 74 L.Ed.2d…
cited
Cited "but see"
Philadelphia TMC, Inc. v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.
But see United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Freshie Co.
But see United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 , (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983) (speaking broadly and not discussing any potential distinguishing features among the language of the subsections, the court concludes that the “enterprise” and the “person” must be distinct entities throughout RICO).
cited
Cited "but see"
Griffin v. O'Neal, Jones & Feldman, Inc.
But see United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Itt Blackburn Co., a Division of Itt
(2×)
the rico 'enterprise' was identified in the indictment as the infonet division of csc, an organization which had no corporate existence separate and apart from that of csc itself
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Joseph Rae v. Union Bank, a Banking Corporation
we conclude that 'enterprise' was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as' or part of, the person whose behavior the act was designed to prohibit ....
discussed
Cited "see"
DeWane v. McGinty (In Re McGinty)
See, U.S. v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384 (7th Cir.1984), aff'd, 473 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 3291 , 87 L.Ed.2d 437 (1985); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir.1984); Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir.1982), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 , 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983); Hirsch v. Enright Refining Co., 751 F.2d 628 (3rd Cir.1984); Bennett v. United S…
discussed
Cited "see"
Vickie Fogie v. Thorn Americas, Inc.
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982) (“[W]e would not take seriously ... an assertion that a defendant could conspire with his right arm, which held, aimed and fired the fatal weapon.”), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. Texas Department of Human Services
See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, Div. of Pullman, Inc., 678 F.2d 1211, 1215 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that a right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional requirement but rather a condition precedent, which can be fulfilled after filing suit), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Harner v. Prudential Securities Inc.
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1187 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983). 27 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall American Center Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Dick
See Entre Computer Centers v. FMG of Kansas City, Inc., 819 F.2d 1279 , 1287 (4th Cir.1987) (assuming a corporation can be part of association-in-fact enterprise, it cannot combine with other entities to form an enterprise when it is already the person whose behavior the Act is designed to punish) (citing United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982) (“enterprise” refers to a being different from, not same as or part of, the person whose behavior the act was designated to punish), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983)); von Bulow…
cited
Cited "see"
Benard v. Hoff
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 495 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dennis Skinner, and Cross-Appellant v. Total Petroleum, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and Cross-Appellee
See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, a Div. of Pullman, Inc., 678 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); DeMatteis v. Eastman Kodak Co., 511 F.2d 306 (2d Cir.1975); Price v. Federal Express Corp., 660 F.Supp. 1388 (D.Colo.1987); Perry v. Manocherian, 675 F.Supp. 1417 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Ragheb v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 467 F.Supp. 94 (E.D.Mich.1979); Liotta v. National Forge Co., 473 F.Supp. 1139 (W.D.Pa.1979), aff’d in part, 629 F.2d 903 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 970 , 101 S.Ct. 2045 , 68 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
William B. Larkin Louise Seals, as Personal Representative of Spurgeon Seals, Deceased Lillie Lofton, as Personal Representative of Edward Lofton, Deceased Jesse B. Terry, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Pullman-Standard Division, Pullman, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant- Louis Swint and Willie James Johnson, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Clyde Humphrey v. Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama United Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, International Association of MacHinists Louis Swint, and Willie James Johnson, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated Clyde Humphrey v. Pullman-Standard, Bessemer, Alabama, United Steelworkers of America Local 1466 and United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, International Association of MacHinists
See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211, 1219 (11th Cir.1982) ("the receipt of a right-to-sue letter subsequent to the commencement of a Title VII action, but while the action remains pending, satisfies the precondition that a plaintiff obtain statutory notice of the right to sue before filing a civil action"), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larkin v. Pullman-Standard Division, Pullman, Inc.
See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211, 1219 (11th Cir.1982) (“the receipt of a right-to-sue letter subsequent to the commencement of a Title VII action, but while the action remains pending, satisfies the precondition that a plaintiff obtain statutory notice of the right to sue before filing a civil action"), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190-91 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Morris v. Gilbert, 649 F.Supp. 1491, 1501 (E.D.N.Y.1986); Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union Local 95, 627 F.Supp. 176, 180-81 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (dismissing claims only as to defendant improperly alleged to be both “person” and “enterprise”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bass v. Retirement Plan of Conoco, Inc.
See, Kaiser Aluminum, etc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983) (motion to dismiss); Simmons v. Lyons, 746 F.2d 265 (5th Cir.1984) (summary judgment).
discussed
Cited "see"
Posey v. Bank of Shaw (In Re Posey)
See, U.S. v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384 (7th Cir.1984), aff'd, 473 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 3291 , 87 L.Ed.2d 437 (1985); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir.1984); Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir.1982), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 , 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983); Hirsch v. Enright Refining Co., 751 F.2d 628 (3rd Cir.1984); Bennett v. United S…
discussed
Cited "see"
Klapper v. Commonwealth Realty Trust
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 , 1190-91 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983) (the distinction applies); Contra, Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat.
cited
Cited "see"
James Clark v. Amoco Production Co., Etc.
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Edwards v. United States
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); United States v. Brien, 617 F.2d 299 , 310 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1854 , 64 L.Ed.2d 273 (1980); United States v. Boggs, 739 F.2d 1376 , 1378 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Schaffner, 715 F.2d 1099, 1102 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1273-74 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Mackie, 681 F.2d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. A-A-A Electrical Company, Inc. & William T. Wilson
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1052-55 , reh. den., 683 F.2d 1373 (5th Cir.1982), cert. den., 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Donahue v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1056-57 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Virden v. Graphics One
The Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s RICO claim and stated: “If Union Bank is the enterprise it cannot also be the RICO defendant.” Id. at 481 ; accord United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982) (“We conclude that ‘enterprise’ was meant to refer to a being different from, not the same as or part of, the person whose behavior the act was designed to prohibit, and, failing that, to punish.”) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Lopez v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 591 F.Supp. 581, 585 (N.D.Cal.1984) (“[I]f an…
discussed
Cited "see"
Texas Utilities Co. v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See discussion in Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1052-1054 (5th Cir.1982), ce rt. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Souvenir Center, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc.
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1055-56 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Electroglas, Inc. v. Dynatex Corp., 497 F.Supp. 97, 105 (N.D.Cal.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Souvenir Center, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc. Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc. National Civil War Wax Museum v. Historic Figures, Inc.
See Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1055-56 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Electroglas, Inc. v. Dynatex Corp., 497 F.Supp. 97, 105 (N.D.Cal.1980). 26 In the case of a genuine tying arrangement, the "overt act" requirement may be satisfied merely by the parties continuing to maintain contractual relationships that directly affect competition in the tied product market.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thornton v. Chrysler Corp.
See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211, 1215-19 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983) ; Gordon v. National Youth Work Alliance, 675 F.2d 356, 359-60 (D.C.Cir. 1982); Thomas v. KATV Channel 7, 692 F.2d 548 , 549 n. 2 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1431 , 75 L.Ed.2d 790 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David A. Feldman
See United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 , 1188 n. 14 (4th Cir.1982), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 729 (1983); United States v. Giovengo, 637 F.2d 941, 944 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1032 , 101 S.Ct. 1743 , 68 L.Ed.2d 228 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Enviroglas Products, Inc. v. Enviroglas Products, LLC
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir.1994); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir.1982) (citing 5B Wright & Miller § 1357 at 598 (1969), for the proposition that “the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Strauss v. Ford Motor Co.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir.1994); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir.1982) (citing 5B Wright & Miller § 1357 at 598 (1969), for the proposition that “the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Schwartz
Entre, 819 F.2d at 1287; see also United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982) (holding that corporation cannot be both the enterprise and the defendant), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Bennett v. United States Trust Co., 770 F.2d 308, 314-15 (2d Cir.1985) (same), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Adams v. Burlington Northern Railroad
See, e.g., Pinhard, v. Pullman-Standard, Div. of Pullman, Inc., 678 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983) (right-to-sue letter as precondition to filing Title VII suit satisfied by receipt of letter while action still pending); Hladki v. Jeffrey’s Consol., Ltd., 652 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (dismissing action under Rule 9(c) for failure to plead or aver compliance with a condition precedent when plaintiff brought Title VII action before obtaining right-to-sue letter from EEOC).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Information Exchange Systems, Inc., and Ixi Laboratories, Inc. v. First Bank National Association, Qwix Media Shops and Depots, Inc. v. First Bank National Association
See, e.g., Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1056 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).) As far as we can tell, the trial court's opinion on summary judgment did not address the antitrust allegations, made only by Qwix, in relation to the requirements placed upon it by the bank as a condition of continued credit. 20 In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs state that competition was ultimately reduced in the marketplace for diskettes and their duplication, first, because of the takeover of the pla…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Information Exchange Systems, Inc. v. First Bank National Ass'n
See, e.g., Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1056 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).) As far as we can tell, the trial court’s opinion on summary judgment did not address the antitrust allegations, made only by Qwix, in relation to the requirements placed upon it’ by the bank as a condition of continued credit.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Dale
See, e.g., United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 , 1187 n. 13 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32, 49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 320 , 58 L.Ed.2d 324 (1978); United States v. Miller, 545 F.2d 1204 , 1216 n. 17 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 930 , 97 S.Ct. 1549 , 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977); United States v. Standard Drywall Corp., 617 F.Supp. 1283, 1295-96 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Diane M. Dillon
(2×)
See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462 , 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed.Cir.1984) (it is error to focus inquiry “ ‘solely on the product created, rather than on the obviousness or nonobviousness of its creation’ ”) (quoting General Motors Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 687 F.2d 476, 482-83 , 215 USPQ 484 , 489 (CCPA 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. National RR Passenger Corp.
See, e.g., Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211 , 1229 n. 15 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State Ex Rel. Pinson v. Maynard
See also United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1189 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983). 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inc. v. Mui-Hin Lau
In explaining that a RICO "person" must be distinct from the "enterprise”, the Seventh Circuit stated that "it is not obvious that the problem can be resolved by merely alleging that the corporation and its employees constitute an association in fact.” Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F.2d 384, 401 (7th Cir.1984), aff’d 473 U.S. 606 , 105 S.Ct. 3291 , 87 L.Ed.2d 437 (1985); see also United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982) (the court reasoned that allowing the enterprise to be the same as or part of the defendant-per…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Randall J. Wright
See, e.g., In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054 , 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA 1976) (the particular problem facing the inventor must be considered in determining obviousness); see also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462 , 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed.Cir.1984) (it is error to focus “solely on the product created, rather than on the obviousness or nonobviousness of its creation”) (quoting General Motors Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 687 F.2d 476, 483 , 215 USPQ 484 , 489 (CCPA 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chahram Pahlavi v. Petros Palandjian
See Freeman v. feeling, 290 Mass. 93, 95 , 194 N.E. 677 (1935) (Duress, when asserted as an affirmative defense to a contract claim, requires a showing that the alleged victim was “deprived of the freedom of will” and that the alleged perpetrator acquired “dominion over [his] mind.”); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1057 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983) (“anticipated duress” argument fails as a matter of law); Jastrzebski, 423 F.Supp. at 674 (person claiming duress must be…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frota v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
Rush v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 628 F.Supp. 1188, 1194 (S.D.N.Y.1985); see also United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190-91 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Modern Settings, Inc. v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
See, e.g., Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir.1984) (bank charged along with several of its employees), Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1061 , (8th Cir.) aff'd in pertinent part 710 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008 , 104 S.Ct. 527 , 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983) (corporation charged along with its president, officers, directors, employees and other controlled corporations), U.S. v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983) (corporation charged along with six employees).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jacqueline M. Harris, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor-Appellant v. Amoco Production Co.
(2×)
They are, however, nothing more than procedural prerequisites to the court’s determination of the substantive issues.” Id. at 524 ; see also Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 674 F.2d 379, 383-84 (5th Cir.1982). 18 Similarly, in Pin kard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983), we applied Zipes to hold under section 706(f)(1), that “the receipt of a right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, but rather is a condition precedent subject to equitable modification.” Id. at 1216; accord Go…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ying Shen v. Oklahoma State Department of Health
See e.g., Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983); Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., 678 F.2d 992 (11th Cir.1982). *190 Accordingly, the Plaintiffs action is dismissed in its entirety.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lucius T. SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Hugh HARDISON, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
See also Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, a Division of Pullman, Inc., 678 F.2d 1211, 1216-17 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 954 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp.
See, e.g., United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 F.2d 1181, 1190 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1105 , 103 S.Ct. 729 , 74 L.Ed.2d 953 (1983); Parnes v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 548 F.Supp. 20, 23-24 (N.D.Ill.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pullman Standard, Inc.
v.
Pinkard
v.
Pinkard
No. 82-733.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 1983.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Eighth Circuit (2) · Ninth Circuit (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.