572 U.S. 118 (2014) Cited 2,843 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
553 U.S. 639 (2008) Cited 1,104 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
503 U.S. 258 (1992) Cited 1,666 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
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
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
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”
15 U.S.C. § 45 Cited 3,856 times 563 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"