71 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 273,590 times 368 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
Skilling v. U.S.
561 U.S. 358 (2010) Cited 1,684 times 58 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 3,659 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
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,490 times 177 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York
559 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 774 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
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
547 U.S. 451 (2006) Cited 859 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
Rotella v. Wood
528 U.S. 549 (2000) Cited 931 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding RICO claims accrue upon a plaintiff's discovery of their injury, not discovery of Defendants' actions
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Assocs
483 U.S. 143 (1987) Cited 1,192 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations
McNally v. United States
483 U.S. 350 (1987) Cited 1,109 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that the mail fraud statute is "limited in scope to the protection of property rights"
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 160,289 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,551 times 328 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 16,093 times 60 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 15,089 times 72 Legal Analyses
Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341 Cited 13,557 times 104 Legal Analyses
Relating to mail fraud
Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
18 U.S.C. § 1343 Cited 12,305 times 172 Legal Analyses
Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"
Section 1964 - Civil remedies
18 U.S.C. § 1964 Cited 6,157 times 42 Legal Analyses
Granting civil remedies for RICO violation
Section 1346 - Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"
18 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 1,342 times 55 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"

Petroleos Mexicanos et al v. Conproca S.A. DE C.V. et al

71 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

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

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 extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

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 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 RICO claims accrue upon a plaintiff's discovery of their injury, not discovery of Defendants' actions

Holding that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year statute of limitations

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

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

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Specifying prohibited activities

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Relating to mail fraud

Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

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"