§Why CasetextPricing

Burgess et al v. Religious Technology Center, Inc. et al

RESPONSE re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

33 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 266,691 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 279,746 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. American Dental Assoc. v. Cigna Corp.

    605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,632 times
    Holding that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' § 1962(c) claims because plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled the acts of mail and wire fraud alleged to form a pattern of racketeering activity

  4. Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

    116 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,981 times
    Holding that employees "who have not suffered an injury in that they have been covered by Medicare for the medical care they have received retain a sufficient interest in this action for purposes of the Constitutional 'case or controversy' requirement"

  5. United Tech. Corp. v. Mazer

    556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 918 times
    Holding that " court without personal jurisdiction is powerless to take further action"

  6. Ziemba v. Cascade Intern., Inc.

    256 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 764 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 9(b) satisfied if "complaint sets forth precisely what statements were made in what documents or oral representations or what omissions were made, and the time and place of each statement and the person responsible for making it, . . . the content of such statements and the manner in which they misled plaintiffs, and what defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud"

  7. Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

    383 U.S. 363 (1966)   Cited 397 times
    Holding that where, in an oral examination by respondents' counsel, petitioner, an immigrant with practically no formal education and limitcd knowledge of the English language, showed that she did not understand the complaint, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) did not justify dismissal of petitioner's case merely because petitioner was uneducated about the nature of the lawsuit

  8. Durham v. Business Management Associates

    847 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir. 1988)   Cited 353 times
    Holding allegation of use of the mails sufficient, where plaintiffs' allegation that "correspondence and other communications concerning [the alleged scheme to defraud] took place through . . . the mails" was supported by an attached affidavit from a recipient describing such correspondence, even though dates and times of mailings were not stated

  9. U.S. v. Ward

    486 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 97 times
    Stating that an 18 U.S.C. § 1343 conviction for wire fraud requires evidence that the defendant intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud another of property, and used or caused the use of wires to execute the scheme to defraud

  10. Liquidation Com'n v. Renta

    530 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that "RICO predicate acts not sounding in fraud need not necessarily be pleaded with particularity"

  11. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 163,831 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  12. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 94,788 times   92 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

  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 40,114 times   335 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

    18 U.S.C. § 1343   Cited 12,545 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

  15. Section 16-14-1 - Short title

    Ga. Code § 16-14-1   Cited 240 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act." OCGA § 16-14-1

  16. Section 13-3-42 - Acts which constitute consideration; effect of consideration given or received by persons other than promisor or promisee

    Ga. Code § 13-3-42   Cited 61 times
    Providing that consideration may consist of forbearance

  17. Section 16-14-2 - Findings and intent of General Assembly

    Ga. Code § 16-14-2   Cited 32 times

    (a) The General Assembly finds that a severe problem is posed in this state by the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements and the increasing extent to which the state and its citizens are harmed as a result of the activities of these elements. (b) The General Assembly declares that the intent of this chapter is to impose sanctions against those who violate this chapter and to provide compensation to persons injured or aggrieved by such violations. It is not the intent of the General

  18. Section 16-14-5 - Criminal penalties for violation of Code Section 16-14-4

    Ga. Code § 16-14-5   Cited 8 times

    (a) Any person convicted of the offense of engaging in activity in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by not less than five nor more than 20 years' imprisonment or the fine specified in subsection (b) of this Code section, or both. (b) In lieu of any fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of the offense of engaging in conduct in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed the greater of $25

  19. Section 26-5-2 - Legislative intent

    Ga. Code § 26-5-2   Cited 1 times

    The purpose of this article is to provide for the classification and systematic evaluation of various programs designed for the treatment and therapeutic rehabilitation of drug dependent persons; to ensure that every governing body which operates a drug abuse treatment and education program is licensed to do so; and to meet the rehabilitative needs of drug dependent persons while safeguarding their individual liberties. OCGA § 26-5-2 Amended by 2017 Ga. Laws 140,§ 2, eff. 5/4/2017.

  20. Section 26-5-5 - Promulgation of minimum standards of quality and services for each class of programs

    Ga. Code § 26-5-5   Cited 1 times

    The department shall create and promulgate minimum standards of quality and services for each designated class of programs. At least the following areas shall be covered in the rules and regulations: (1) Adequate and safe buildings or housing facilities where programs are offered; (2) Adequate equipment for the delivery of programs; (3) Sufficient trained or experienced staff who are competent in the duties they are to perform; (4) The content and quality of services to be provided; (5) Requirements

  21. Rule 290-4-2-.02 - Repealed

    Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 290-4-2-.02

    Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. R. 290-4-2-.02 O.C.G.A. §§ 26-5-1et seq. Original Rule entitled "Definitions" adopted. F. Nov. 17, 1975; eff. Dec. 7, 1975. Repealed: New Rule entitled "Title and Purposes" adopted. F. Sept. 18, 1997; eff. Oct. 8, 1997. Repealed: F. Sep. 9, 2013; eff. Sept. 29, 2013.