§Why CasetextPricing

DILLON v. BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A. et al

MEMORANDUM

35 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,799 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Boyle v. United States

    556 U.S. 938 (2009)   Cited 1,135 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a RICO enterprise "need not have a hierarchical structure or a 'chain of command'; decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods — by majority vote, consensus, a show of strength, etc."

  3. United States v. Turkette

    452 U.S. 576 (1981)   Cited 2,719 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a RICO enterprise must exist "separate and apart" from the pattern of racketeering activity

  4. Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell

    480 U.S. 531 (1987)   Cited 2,087 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a District Court did not err in declining to issue an injunction to bar exploratory drilling on Alaskan public lands, because the district court's decision "did not undermine" the policy of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3120, and because the Secretary of the Interior had other means of meaningfully complying with the statute

  5. Reves v. Ernst Young

    507 U.S. 170 (1993)   Cited 1,413 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant "participates" if he "directs" the pattern of racketeering activity

  6. Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies

    523 U.S. 751 (1998)   Cited 645 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity”

  7. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

    618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 1,462 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that per se "hub and spoke" theory was not properly pled when complaint detailed specific agreements between multiple insurers and a single broker, but did not allege facts such that the court could infer that the insurers had agreed horizontally to enter into their respective agreements with the broker

  8. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Potawatomi Tribe

    498 U.S. 505 (1991)   Cited 627 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states have a right to collect taxes on certain cigarette sales on an Indian reservation, but the tribe is immune from suit seeking to enforce that right

  9. Phillips v. LCI International, Inc.

    190 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a court may consider [a document attached to a motion to dismiss] in determining whether to dismiss the complaint [when] it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and [when] the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.”

  10. Dalton v. Camp

    353 N.C. 647 (N.C. 2001)   Cited 603 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the duty of loyalty creates no cause of action but may serve as an employer's defense to a claim of wrongful discharge

  11. Section 1962 - Prohibited activities

    18 U.S.C. § 1962   Cited 15,895 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Specifying prohibited activities

  12. Section 75-1.1 - Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policy

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1   Cited 1,988 times   111 Legal Analyses
    Declaring unlawful "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"

  13. Section 24-1.1 - Contract rates and fees

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-1.1   Cited 46 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or other applicable law, the parties to a loan, purchase money loan, advance, commitment for a loan, or forbearance, other than a credit card, open-end, or similar loan, may contract in writing for the payment of interest not in excess of the following: (1) Where the principal amount is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, the rate set under subsection (c) of this section. (2) Any rate agreed upon by the parties where the principal amount

  14. Section 24-2 - Penalty for usury; corporate bonds may be sold below par

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-2   Cited 16 times

    The taking, receiving, reserving or charging a greater rate of interest than permitted by this chapter or other applicable law, either before or after the interest may accrue, when knowingly done, shall be a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. And in case a greater rate of interest has been paid, the person or his legal representatives or corporation by whom it has been paid, may recover back twice

  15. Section 53-191 - Businesses exempted

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-191   Cited 1 times

    Nothing in this Article shall be construed to apply to any person, firm or corporation doing business under the authority of any law of this State or of the United States relating to banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, cooperative credit unions, agricultural credit corporations or associations organized under the laws of North Carolina, production credit associations organized under the act of Congress known as the Farm Credit Act of 1933, pawnbrokers lending or advancing money