79 Cited authorities

Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 2,832 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked
Skilling v. U.S.
561 U.S. 358 (2010) Cited 1,650 times 56 Legal Analyses
Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal
H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
492 U.S. 229 (1989) Cited 3,622 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the continuity prong can be met by showing that related predicate offenses continued over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of continuing activity
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co.
553 U.S. 639 (2008) Cited 1,103 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that bidders at a county tax-lien auction plausibly alleged RICO proximate causation when they lost to a competing bidder who lied to the county about complying with the auction's rules
Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York
559 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 762 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant retailer's failure to make state-law-required disclosures that would make it easier for the City to recover delinquent taxes did not proximately cause the City's injury, which more directly came from the delinquent taxpayers themselves
McNally v. United States
483 U.S. 350 (1987) Cited 1,100 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"
Beck v. Prupis
529 U.S. 494 (2000) Cited 546 times
Holding that in order for a RICO plaintiff to have standing he must establish that his injuries were caused by a predicate act within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Tafflin v. Levitt
493 U.S. 455 (1990) Cited 578 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims
Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.
451 U.S. 630 (1981) Cited 723 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding no right of contribution under Clayton and Sherman Acts
Cleveland v. United States
531 U.S. 12 (2000) Cited 374 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1341 does not reach schemes to make false statements on a state license application, in part based on reluctance to "approve a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress"
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,426 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 38,894 times 316 Legal Analyses
Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 15,864 times 59 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Section 1964 - Civil remedies
18 U.S.C. § 1964 Cited 6,085 times 41 Legal Analyses
Granting civil remedies for RICO violation
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Fed. R. Evid. 408 Cited 4,256 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)
Section 1346 - Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"
18 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 1,290 times 54 Legal Analyses
Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"

Fundacion Segarra-Boerman e Hijos, Inc. et al v. Martinez-Alvarez et al

79 Cited authorities

Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked

Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal

Holding that the continuity prong can be met by showing that related predicate offenses continued over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of continuing activity

Holding that bidders at a county tax-lien auction plausibly alleged RICO proximate causation when they lost to a competing bidder who lied to the county about complying with the auction's rules

Holding that the defendant retailer's failure to make state-law-required disclosures that would make it easier for the City to recover delinquent taxes did not proximately cause the City's injury, which more directly came from the delinquent taxpayers themselves

Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"

Holding that in order for a RICO plaintiff to have standing he must establish that his injuries were caused by a predicate act within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962

Holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims

Holding no right of contribution under Clayton and Sherman Acts

Holding that § 1341 does not reach schemes to make false statements on a state license application, in part based on reluctance to "approve a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress"

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

Specifying prohibited activities

Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"