45 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 251,360 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 2,823 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
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co.
553 U.S. 639 (2008) Cited 1,100 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
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp.
503 U.S. 258 (1992) Cited 1,661 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) could not recover under RICO for stock-manipulation scheme that bankrupted broker-dealers, triggering a statutory requirement that SIPC meet the broker-dealers' obligations to their customers
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
547 U.S. 451 (2006) Cited 848 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a business could not recover against its competitor for a scheme to defraud the New York State tax authority that allowed the defendant to undercut the plaintiff's prices
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,455 times 3 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
Cruz v. Fxdirectdealer, LLC
720 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 367 times
Holding that certain entities alleged to be members of a RICO enterprise did not share a common purpose with the other defendants but analyzing whether any of the other defendants shared a common purpose
U.S. v. Autuori
212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 527 times
Holding that a jury verdict must be upheld if a rational trier of fact "could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"
Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc.
255 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2000) Cited 453 times
Holding that “technical expertise” or “[s]uperior skill and knowledge alone do not create a fiduciary duty among parties involved in a business transaction”
Lipton v. Nature Co.
71 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 503 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's claim that he conducted "thorough" research was nonactionable puffery
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 155,442 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 15,832 times 59 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Fed. R. Evid. 408 Cited 4,245 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)
Section 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission
15 U.S.C. § 45 Cited 3,850 times 543 Legal Analyses
Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"

Greenwich Taxi, Inc et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

45 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

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 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 Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) could not recover under RICO for stock-manipulation scheme that bankrupted broker-dealers, triggering a statutory requirement that SIPC meet the broker-dealers' obligations to their customers

Holding that a business could not recover against its competitor for a scheme to defraud the New York State tax authority that allowed the defendant to undercut the plaintiff's prices

Holding that certain entities alleged to be members of a RICO enterprise did not share a common purpose with the other defendants but analyzing whether any of the other defendants shared a common purpose

Holding that a jury verdict must be upheld if a rational trier of fact "could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that “technical expertise” or “[s]uperior skill and knowledge alone do not create a fiduciary duty among parties involved in a business transaction”

Holding that defendant's claim that he conducted "thorough" research was nonactionable puffery

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Specifying prohibited activities

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

Providing court-ordered monetary penalties against anyone who engages in conduct previously identified as prohibited in a final cease and desist order, but only if the violator acted with "actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive"