§Why CasetextPricing

USA v. Egan et al

MEMORANDUM in Support

22 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 261,228 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 274,597 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

  3. Papasan v. Allain

    478 U.S. 265 (1986)   Cited 17,167 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

  4. Cunningham v. Brown

    265 U.S. 1 (1924)   Cited 388 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding in the original Ponzi scheme case that claimants were not entitled to equitable relief because they could not trace their property within Ponzi's bank account

  5. DSI Associates LLC v. United States

    496 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 100 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding in context of criminal forfeiture that remission proceeding was "non-judicial remedy"

  6. U.S. v. Schwimmer

    968 F.2d 1570 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that "legal interest" in 18 U.S.C. § 1963 means one that arises "under the law" and not one that is "traditionally enforceable at law," and therefore includes constructive trusts

  7. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp, Ltd.

    290 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that a pro rata distribution is particularly appropriate where the funds of defrauded investors were commingled and the victims were similarly situated with respect to the wrongdoing

  8. United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.

    46 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that “a general creditor can never have an interest in specific forfeited property”

  9. U.S. v. Ribadeneira

    105 F.3d 833 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that in order to obtain standing a petitioner must have “an interest in a particular, specific asset”

  10. S.E.C. v. Byers

    637 F. Supp. 2d 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 58 times
    Finding "some evidence that commingling occurred" supported a pro rata distribution, and noting "the law does not appear to require more than that"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 355,433 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 853 - Criminal forfeitures

    21 U.S.C. § 853   Cited 8,749 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Adopting same standard as § 1963( l )

  13. Section 2461 - Mode of recovery

    28 U.S.C. § 2461   Cited 3,264 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing criminal forfeiture where civil forfeiture is permitted in connection with a criminal offense

  14. Section 982 - Criminal forfeiture

    18 U.S.C. § 982   Cited 2,225 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Allowing forfeiture as part of the court "imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense"

  15. Section 1963 - Criminal penalties

    18 U.S.C. § 1963   Cited 1,350 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Permitting substitution where property forfeitable under § 1963 has been dissipated