green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
74.5 score
“he phrase 'court of the united states' in 1985(2) refers only to article iii courts and certain federal courts created by act of congress, but not to state courts.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CAUSEY v. DAVIS
it is by now axiomatic that a conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Stern v. Roberts
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
chambliss and dickerson remain the law in this circuit.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Procaps S.A. v. Patheon, Inc.
conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
White v. City of Athens
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
this outcome flows from the long-established conclusion that the in-tracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to criminal conspiracies.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Vidurek v. Cassadine
he phrase 'court of the united states' in 1985(2) refers only to article iii courts and certain federal courts created by act of congress, but not to state courts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Carey v. Jonathan Kirk
“Simply put, under the doctrine [of intracorporate conspiracy], a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William E. Matthews, VI v. Antaris Technologies, Inc., et al.
McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Congruex, LLC, et al. v. CCU, LLC, et al.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DAVIS v. THE FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
The District moved to dismiss any conspiracy claim against it as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.7 That doctrine holds that “acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reaves v. City of Montgomery
Specifically, “[t]he intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bethel v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Under the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine, “a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172 , 1190 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hopps v. City of Tampa
However, there is a “long- established conclusion that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not apply to criminal conspiracies.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1035 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Kendall
Va. Mar. 7, 2017) (citing McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TOBIN v. FLOWERS
Additionally, Tobin has not “provide[d] sufficient allegations to make plausible that there was a ‘meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish [the] common and unlawful plan,’” which is required “[i]rrespective of the type of conspiracy alleged.” Id. (citing McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, S.A.
The intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine provides that “a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. The City of Lynchburg
Va. Mar. 7, 2017) (citing McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Am.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PAULCIN v. CHUNN
For example, Plaintiff alleged that 2 The “intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoted in Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1261 (11th Cir. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Echols v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
In any event, he most certainly fails on the first two elementsFirst, “just as it is not legally possible for an individual person to conspire with himself, it is not possible for a single legal entity consisting of the corporation and its agents to conspire with itself.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Essex Capital Group, INC v. Warnell, Jr.
Civil Conspiracy To plead civil conspiracy, Essex must sufficiently allege “an agreement between two or more people to achieve an illegal objective, an overt act in furtherance of that illegal objective, and a resulting injury to the plaintiff.” Wainberg v. Mellichamp, 93 F.4th 1221 , 1225 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diamonds Direct v. Manly Bands
Utah courts have recognized, however, that “it is not possible for a single legal entity consisting of the corporation and its agents to conspire with itself.” Tomlinson v. NCR Corp., 296 P.3d 760, 768 (Utah Ct. App. 2013), rev’d on other grounds, 345 P.3d 523 (Utah 2014) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frazier v. Eagle Air Med Corporation
Utah Sept. 11, 2013) (citing Zelinger v. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co., 316 F.2d 47, 52 (10th Cir. 1963)). 53 Tomlinson v. NCR Corp., 2013 UT App 26, ¶ 18 , 296 P.3d 760 rev’d on other grounds, 2014 UT 55 , 345 P.3d 523 , (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)). 54 Docket No. 66 ¶¶ 16–18.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bates v. Sequel Youth and Family Services LLC
(2×)
But, as Plaintiffs note, an important exception to this doctrine exists: “the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine cannot shield corporate employees and corporations accused of criminal conspiracies.” Id. at 1039.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson-Nixon v. Brunswick Housing Authority
“Irrespective of the type of conspiracy alleged [under § 1985(2)], the plaintiff must provide sufficient allegations to make plausible that there was a ‘meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish [the] common and unlawful plan.’” Jimenez, 644 F. App’x at 873 (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reaves v. City of Montgomery
Second, Mayor Reed argues that Reaves’ claim is barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which holds that “a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).13 The Court need not address Mayor Reed’s first argument because the 13 The Eleventh Circuit has held that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to public, governmental entities.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dr. Robert H. Wainberg v. James Mellichamp
A civil conspiracy, in turn, requires “an agreement between two or more people to achieve an illegal objective, an overt act in furtherance of that illegal objective, and a resulting in- jury to the plaintiff.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 912 (11th Cir. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Andrews v. D'Souza
The Statute The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871) “was passed in response to a rising tide of Klan terrorism against blacks and Union sympathizers and was designed to proscribe conspiracies having the object or effect of frustrating the constitutional operations of government through assaults on the person, property, and liberties of individuals.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1041 (11th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Boston Red Sox
Even if the AC pled what Plaintiff asserts in her brief—that the company shared Plaintiff’s vaccination information with Plaintiff’s direct supervisor—that would also be insufficient, partly because “under basic agency principles, the acts of a corporation's agents are considered to be those of a single legal actor.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)(citing Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Makere v. Allstate Insurance Company
Thus, regardless of which subsection applies, “the plaintiff must provide sufficient allegations to make plausible that there was a ‘meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish [the] common and unlawful plan.’” See Jimenez v. Wizel, 644 F. App’x 868, 873 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)). “[W]here the plaintiff fails to allege an agreement, the pleading is deficient and subject to dismissal.” Mickens, 181 F. App’x at 876 (citing Bailey, 956 F.2d at 1122 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moss v. Inch
“The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill v. North Mobile Nursing and Rehabilitation
Third, to the extent Plaintiff alleges North Mobile Nursing and Odom conspired together, such claim also fails under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, which holds “a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford v. Smitherman
Brown and Ellison argue that Warren’s claim is barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.5 “The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172 , 1190 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baugh v. Austal USA, LLC
However, as noted by the Eleventh Circuit in McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc): The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
C H v. ASHLEY
Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine Finally, C.H.’s civil conspiracy claims also are barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, pursuant to which a legal entity—such as the School District or the School Board—“cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000);13 see also Denney, 247 F.3d at 1190.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prince v. Hui Huliau
The doctrine “holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “[U]nder the doctrine, a corporation cannot conspire with its employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot conspire among themselves.” Id.; see also Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172 , 1190-91 (11th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hatfield v. Cottages on 78th Community
Indeed, “[a]s a general rule, ‘it is not possible for a single legal entity consisting of the corporation and its agents to conspire with itself,’ because they do not constitute two separate persons.” Tomlinson v. NCR Corp., 296 P.3d 760, 768 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (citing McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)), rev’d on other grounds, 345 P.3d 523 (Utah 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenn v. Cleveland Brothers, Inc.(MAG+)
“It is by now axiomatic that a conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Christopher Tavorris Wilkins
It need not be accompanied by “the use of physical or eco- nomic threat.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1040 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glenn v. Cleveland Brothers, Inc.(MAG+)
Irrespective of the type of conspiracy alleged, the plaintiff must provide sufficient allegations to make plausible that there was a “meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.” See McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Colbert County Alabama
An exception exists for “criminal conspiracies where the conduct violates the federal criminal code.” Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1263 (citing McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2000)).7 6 In Denney, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ § 1985 conspiracy claims where the two alleged conspirators were employed by the city, the employees allegedly conspired in the firefighter promotion process, and “no outsiders [were] alleged to be involved.” 247 F.3d at 1191.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Pasco County Sheriff's Department
And, Florida’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity in § 768.28, Florida Statutes, does not constitute consent to be sued in federal court under corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). § 1983.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez Verde v. Pasco County Sheriff's Department
Under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, “acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. JEWMON ENTERPRISES, LLC
While the While the Defendants correctly note that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine “holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000), the Defendants fail to acknowledge that while Westphal and Sykes may be members of JewMon Enterprises, LLC, the Defendants do not allege JewMon, and the other corporate entity Defendants are related.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. WAVEFRONT, LLC
Ga. 2012) (concluding that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine did not apply to the FCA claim in that case because the relator alleged conduct that would violate the FCA and 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; there is an exception to the doctrine for criminal conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. § 371 ; and the doctrine “cannot shield the same conspiracy, 20 alleging the same criminal wrongdoing, from civil liability” (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1034 (11th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Feng v. Walsh
Corp., 976 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). “[A] conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish a common and unlawful plan.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing Bivens Gardens Office Bldg., Inc. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 912 (11th Cir. 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarvis v. Taylor
McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MorningStar Fellowship Church v. York County South Carolina
Under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, “a corporation [and municipality] cannot conspire with its employees, and, its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment, cannot 18 conspire among themselves.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. Motorola, Inc., 200 F.2d 911, 914 (5th Cir. 1952) (“a corporation cannot conspire with itself any more than a private individual can, and it is the general rule that the acts of the agent are the acts of the corporation.”); Michelin v. Jenkins, 704 F. Supp 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Hogan v. City of Fort Walton Beach
“The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine holds that acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dyal v. Gardner
Yet, under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine “acts of corporate agents are attributed to the corporation itself, thereby negating the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doe v. The University of South Alabama
The doctrine, which applies only to civil causes of action, “developed out of basic agency principles that attribute the actions of a corporation's agents to the corporation itself, which negates ‘the multiplicity of actors necessary for the formation of a conspiracy.’ ” White, 169 F. Supp.3d at 1269 (quoting McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir. 2000)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merchant One, Inc. v. TLO, Inc.
Corp., 575 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) “Just as it is not legally possible for an individual to conspire with himself, it is not possible for a single legal entity consisting of the corporation and its agents to conspire with itself.” McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031, 1036 (11th Cir.2000) (citing Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosario Donato
v.
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
v.
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
97-2428.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 7, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
206 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2000)
Rosario DONATO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-2428.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 7, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, BLACK, Circuit Judge, and HOEVELER[*], Senior District Judge[**]
PER CURIAM:
1
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint on the basis of the opinion rendered by the Supreme Court of Florida, Donato v. AT & T Co., No. SC93534, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. Jan.20, 2000).
2
AFFIRMED.