Notes of Decisions
Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (2010).
· cites it 12× “That failure, the City argues, constitutes mail and wire fraud, which caused it to lose tens of millions of dollars in unrecovered ciga rette taxes.”
Safe Streets All. v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 7× “5 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), against certain affiliates of a State- and county-licensed marijuana manufactory that allegedly has injured the landowners’ adjacent property.”
Clifton Jackson v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 731 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 14× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).1 The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 13× “The relevant section of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a), provides the District Courts jurisdiction only for forward-looking remedies that prevent and restrain violations of the Act.”
City of New York v. Smokes-Spirits. Com, Inc., 541 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 10× “In civil cases, however, RICO plaintiffs must also satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). Section 1964(c) provides that "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962" has the right to "recover threefold the damages he…”
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 7× “BATCo argues that the effects test is inapplicable because the United States had no obligation to prove that Defendants’ conduct had any effects whatsoever.”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008).
· cites it 4× “As the earlier canvass of state experience showed, this is the model many States have adopted, see supra, at 2623, and n.”
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987).
· cites it 6× “At issue in these consolidated cases is the appropriate statute of limitations for civil enforcement actions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1964 (1982 ed. and Supp. III).”
D'Addario v. D'Addario, 75 F.4th 86 (2d Cir. 2023).
· cites it 17× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). We conclude that Virginia’s claims are not barred by the RICO Amendment because the fraud she alleges is not “in the purchase or sale of securities.”
Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 943 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 5× “We agree with the district court that the bar now embodied in 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) did not prevent Menzies from pursuing a RICO claim on the facts alleged in his com- plaint.”
West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar Farms, Inc., 727 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “) Because Plaintiffs were entitled to treble damages under RICO, see 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), the district court multiplied these losses by three, to arrive at the figure of $49,405,811.”
Eur. Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D.N.Y 2001).
· cites it 12× “Having concluded that the revenue rule is not implicated in this case, I then address the Defendants’ arguments concerning Plaintiffs lack of standing under the federal civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). A. The Revenue Rule Defendants argue that this court is bound to…”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) — 2 cases
— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) — 33 cases
Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton, Joseph, Houghton, Donna Livoy, Cassidy, John, Cassidy, Kathleen, Livoy, Frank, 863 F.2d 1125 (3rd Cir. 1988).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1964(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.