Kevin P. Madden, Charles J. Oswald, & Richard W. Kurre v. Jeffrey M. Gluck, Debra McAlear Gluck, & Landmark St. Louis Bank, 815 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Kevin P. Madden, Charles J. Oswald, & Richard W. Kurre v. Jeffrey M. Gluck, Debra McAlear Gluck, & Landmark St. Louis Bank, 815 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gadberry v. McQueen-Kuenzel (moed, 2024-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gadberry v. McQueen-Kuenzel
E.D. Mo. · 2024 · confidence medium
Mgmt., Inc., 303 F.3d at 105 ; Larry Good & Associates, 2006 WL 3257180 , at *2 (citing Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1163 (8th Cir.1987))(“Injury resulting from mere subdivisions of one fraudulent scheme is not sufficient to form a pattern of racketeering activity.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stock v. Heiner
D. Minnesota · 1988 · confidence medium
Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) W. Garland Nealy v. Jack Hamilton, Michael Garson, and Walton Shepherd
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terre Du Lac Association, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Co., 829 F.2d 648 , 649-50 (8th Cir.1987); Allright Mo., Inc. v. Billeter, 829 F.2d 631 , 640-41 (8th Cir.1987); Ornest v. Delaware N. Cos., 818 F.2d 651 , 652 (8th Cir.1987); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 86 , 98 L.Ed.2d 48 (1987); Deviries v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 805 F.2d 326, 329 (8th Cir.1986); Holmberg v. Morrisette, 800 F.2d 205, 209-10 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1953 , 95 L.Ed.2d 526 (1987). 8 Here, the District Court concluded, and the Association does not contest, that the alleged predi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terre Du Lac Ass'n v. Terre Du Lac, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Co., 829 F.2d 648 , 649-50 (8th Cir.1987); Allright Mo., Inc. v. Billeter, 829 F.2d 631 , 640-41 (8th Cir.1987); Ornest v. Delaware N. Cos., 818 F.2d 651 , 652 (8th Cir.1987); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 108 S.Ct. 86 , 98 L.Ed.2d 48 (1987); Deviries v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 805 F.2d 326, 329 (8th Cir.1986); Holmberg v. Morrisette, 800 F.2d 205, 209-10 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 107 S.Ct. 1953 , 95 L.Ed.2d 526 (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) H.J. Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Kirk Dahl, Larry Krugen and Mary Krugen, Individually and D/B/A Photo Images, Susan Davis, Robert Neal, Issac H. Ward, Richard L. Anderson, Thomas J. Mott, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, a Subsidiary of U.S. West, A.B.C. Individually and D.E.F. As Corporations, and Other Unnamed Coconspirators
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See also Ornest v. Delaware North Cos., 818 F.2d 651 , 652 (8th Cir.1987) (single scheme over eight years to defraud plaintiffs of sales commissions); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987) (defendant engaged in a vast array of fraudulent activities in pursuit of a single goal to keep a company afloat in order to loot it).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See also Ornest v. Delaware North Cos., 818 F.2d 651 , 652 (8th Cir.1987) (single scheme over eight years to defraud plaintiffs of sales commissions); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987) (defendant engaged in a vast array of fraudulent activities in pursuit of a single goal to keep a company afloat in order to loot it).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Billeter
1st Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Henning v. First City of Worthington, No. 86-5320, slip op. at 5 n. 5 (8th Cir. July 7, 1987); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 86 , 98 L.Ed.2d 48 (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Billeter
8th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Henning v. First City of Worthington, No. 86-5320, slip op. at 5 n. 5 (8th Cir. July 7, 1987); Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163, 1164 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 86 , 98 L.Ed.2d 48 (1987).
cited Cited "see" Wilson v. Askew
W.D. Ark. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Madden, supra; Omest, supra; Deviries, supra. Therefore, insofar as plaintiff and the corporation were victimized by the defendants acting in concert, a RICO claim has not been pled.
cited Cited "see" Atlas Pile Driving Co. v. DiCon Financial Co.
D. Minnesota · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir.1987) (victims were employees and creditors of defendant); Allright Missouri, 829 F.2d 631 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited "see" Medical Inc. v. Angicor Ltd.
D. Minnesota · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir.1987) (victims were employees and creditors of defendant); Henning v. First Bank of Worthington, 831 F.2d 299 (8th Cir.1987) (the court stated in dicta that “simply because the Bank’s single fraudulent scheme involved victims other than the Hennings, we cannot say that the Bank engaged in similar activities in the past or that [it] was engaged in other criminal activities elsewhere”); see also Allright Missouri, 829 F.2d 631 (8th Cir.1987).
cited Cited "see" Nerman v. Alexander Grant & Co.
W.D. Mo. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163 , 1164 and n. 1 (8th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, June 30, 1987.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sheridan v. Weinberger
M.D. Penn. · 1987 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Madden v. Gluck, 815 F.2d 1163 (8th Cir.1987), International Data Bank, Ltd. v. Zepkin, 812 F.2d 149 (4th Cir.1987), Holmberg v. Morrisette, 800 F.2d 205 (8th Cir.1986), and Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252 (8th Cir.1986) (series of predicate acts related to one fraudulent scheme or criminal episode does not constitute a pattern) with Sun Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Dierdorff 825 F.2d 187 (9th Cir.1987), Cal Arch.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin P. MADDEN, Charles J. Oswald, and Richard W. Kurre, Appellants,
v.
Jeffrey M. GLUCK, Debra McAlear Gluck, and Landmark St. Louis Bank, Appellees
86-1917.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 11, 1987.
815 F.2d 1163
William M. Howard, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants., Jerry J. Murphy and Leo V. Garvin, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., for appellees, Gluck, et al., David W. Harlan, Clayton, Mo., for ap-pellees, Landmark Bank.
Lay, Heaney, Arnold.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellants, representatives of an uncerti-fied class of employees and creditors of the defunct St. Louis Globe Democrat, Inc., challenge the district court’s dismissal of an action they brought against Jeffrey M. Gluck, Debra McAlear Gluck, and Landmark St. Louis Bank (collectively referred to as appellees) alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (RICO). We affirm.

Since the district court dismissed the appellants’ claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state[*1164] a cause of action, we must view the facts alleged in their complaint in the light most favorable to them. See Bennett v. Berg, 685 F.2d 1053, 1057 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 527, 78 L.Ed.2d 710 (1983). So viewed, the complaint alleges that from February of 1984, to the time the complaint was filed, the Glucks dominated and controlled the activities of the Globe with the sole purpose of prolonging its life by creating an illusion that the company was solvent and able to pay its debts. The complaint further alleges that the Glucks engaged in such activities in order to divert the Globe’s assets to their own use and later sell their Globe stock for the highest price obtainable.

In furtherance of this scheme, the complaint alleges that the appellees engaged in a vast array of fraudulent activities by use of the mail and wire in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). The alleged acts include: (1) a check kiting scheme whereby, during the first eight months of 1985, the Glucks drew 5,643 checks totaling $4,264,-038.66 on Landmark St. Louis Bank (Landmark) which were returned because the Globe’s accounts contained insufficient funds and on which Landmark received a total of $93,708.92 in bad check fees; (2) diversion of the Globe’s corporate assets including funds totaling $775,000 withheld from or owing to Globe employees for taxes, union dues, health insurance premiums, savings bond purchases, earned vacation pay, and United Way contributions; and (3) defrauding of creditors by preparing and distributing false financial statements and by failing to comply with the terms of a financing agreement with Citicorp Industrial Credit Corporation.

On June 25, 1986, 636 F.Supp. 463, the district court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted finding that the complaint failed to adequately allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” as the term has been construed by the United States Supreme Court and this Court. The court, applying our recent decision in Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252 (8th Cir.1986), found that although the alleged acts were sufficiently related to form a pattern, they constituted mere subdivisions of only one fraudulent scheme. Thus, the court found that the alleged acts lacked sufficient continuity to form a “pattern of racketeering activity.”

Review of the district court’s memorandum opinion reveals that it is fully consistent with our decision in Superior Oil, which we subsequently reaffirmed in Holmberg v. Morrissette, 800 F.2d 205 (8th Cir.1986). [1] In those cases we held that a “pattern of racketeering activity” requires more than one fraudulent scheme. In this case, appellants allege only a scheme to keep the Globe afloat in order to loot it. Without more, the “pattern of racketeering” element of a RICO violation has not been alleged. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. We are aware of the recent Second Circuit decision criticizing our holding in Superior Oil, and holding that two predicate acts committed with the common purpose of furthering a continuing criminal enterprise provide the continuity and relatedness apparently required by footnote 14 of Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346, 358-59 n. 14 (1985). See United States v. Ianniello, 808 F.2d 184 (2d Cir.1986). Nonetheless, we adhere to our position in Superi- or Oil.