28 U.S.C. § 1964
Constructive notice of pending actions
Where the law of a State requires a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a court of the State to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish in order to give constructive notice of the action as it relates to the real property, and such law authorizes a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a United States district court to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in the same manner, or in the same place, those requirements of the State law must be complied with in order to give constructive notice of such an action pending in a United States district court as it relates to real property in such State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993).
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993). “28 U. S. C. § 1964 ; and see Haw. Rev. Stat.”
St Lukes Health Network Inc v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 967 F.3d 295 (3rd Cir. 2020). “JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the RICO claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.”
Lowell Staats Mining Co. v. Pioneer Uravan, Inc., 596 F. Supp. 1428 (D. Colo. 1984). “REMOVAL OF LIS PENDENS Colorado law as applied by this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1964 , 4 provides: *1432 (1) Filing and Notice.”
United States v. Letscher, 83 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “Letscher moves for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action against him on the ground that the complaint did not describe the Property at issue with sufficient particularity to give adequate legal notice. The defendant does not, however, explain in his…”
In Re Toyota Motor Corp., 785 F. Supp. 2d 883 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1964 (c); Living Designs, 431 F.”
Gilley v. Shoffner, 345 F. Supp. 2d 563 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “28 U.S.C. § 1964 (“Where the law of a State requires a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a court of the State to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in a particular manner .”
Burgese v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 3d 414 (D.N.J. 2015). “2007) (“[W]e conclude that any damages Appellants may have sustained from the lost opportunity to bring personal injury tort claims against the Archdiocese do not constitute ‘injury to business or property within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).”). As the Third Circuit has…”
Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 F. App'x 224 (3rd Cir. 2007). “In sum, we conclude that any damages Appellants may have sustained from the lost opportunity to bring personal injury tort claims against the Archdiocese do not constitute “injury to business or property” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1964 (c). Accordingly, the District…”
Ludvik v. James S. Jackson Co., Inc., 635 P.2d 1135 (Wyo. 1981). “NOTES [1] We are not unmindful of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1964 . From the legislative history relating to that statute we recognize that its purpose was to afford to litigants in a federal court in any state the same protection they would enjoy if they were litigating in…”
Baker v. John Morrell & Co., 266 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Iowa 2003). “Federal law, under 28 U.S.C. § 1964 , governs post-judgment interest on these awards, and post-judgment interest in this case shall be calculated in accordance with 28 U.”
United States v. Carson, 52 F.3d 1173 (2d Cir. 1995). “On his appeal from the civil RICO judgment, Carson contends: (1) that the district court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1964 when it ordered him to disgorge his past ill-gotten gains; (2) that the disgorgement order violated the Double Jeopardy Clause…”
Winkler v. Andrus, 614 F.2d 707 (10th Cir. 1980). “Nor did Winkler file a lis pendens notice which is necessary under 28 U.S.C. § 1964 (1976) and applicable state law (Wyo.”
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.