NORTH CAROLINA'S RICO ACT
|
|
- Gervase Miles
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NORTH CAROLINA'S RICO ACT I. Overview Perhaps no statutory cause of action has engendered as much controversy, derision, and misunderstanding as civil RICO ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations"). From its inception, given its inauspicious title, RICO (both civil and criminal) was naturally assumed to be aimed solely at criminal organizations such as the mafia, inner-city gangs, and the lot. Originally a federal creature, civil RICO, 18 U.S.C , provided a private civil cause of action to recover mandatory treble damages for injury "by reason of a violation of" its substantive provisions. See 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). However, any idea that federal civil RICO was for "mobsters and organized criminals" only was soon dispelled by the United States Supreme Court's holding in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Company, 473 U.S. 479, 499, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3286 (1985). The Sedima Court explicitly recognized that "[civil] RICO [had] evolved into something quite different from the original conception of its [Congressional] enactors." Id. Instead, the Sedima Court observed, civil RICO "ha[s] become a tool for everyday fraud cases brought against respected and legitimate enterprises." Id.(quoting the holding of the Court below, Sedima, 741 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1984)). In sum, the Sedima Court determined, [t]he fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth. Id. (citation omitted). II. North Carolina's Civil RICO Act A. Applicable Statutes North Carolina's civil RICO act was ratified by our legislature about one year after the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Sedima. See Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro, 123 N.C.App. 720, 724, 475 S.E.2d 247, 251 (1996), aff'd, 1997 WL (N.C. Nov. 07, 1997). Patterned substantially after its federal counterpart, North Carolina's civil RICO act (the Act ), N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-4 (1990), contains the following prohibitions: (a) No person shall: (1) Engage in a pattern of racketeering activity or, through a pattern of racketeering activities or through proceeds derived therefrom, acquire or maintain, 1
2 directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money; or (2) Conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, any enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity whether indirectly, or employed by or associated with such enterprise; or (3) Conspire with another or attempt to violate any of the provisions of subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection. (b) Violation of this section is inequitable and constitutes a civil offense only and is not a crime, therefore a mens rea or criminal intent is not an essential element of any of the civil offenses set forth in this section. The Act, at 75D-3(c)(1) and (2), defines "racketeering activity" in the following all-encompassing fashion: to commit, to attempt to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit an act or acts which would be chargeable by indictment... under [Article 5 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, or under Chapter 14 of the General Statutes (excepting certain sections)]... [or as]... any conduct involved in a "money laundering" activity [or as]... [any conduct described as] "[r]acketeering activity" [by the federal RICO statute, as] descri[bed] in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(1). Finally, at 75D-8(c), the Act enumerates the following remedy (among others), which is the focal point of this paper: Any innocent person who is injured or damaged in his business or property by reason of any violation of G.S. 75D-4 involving a pattern of racketeering activity shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and reasonable attorneys fees. For purposes of this subsection, "pattern of racketeering activity" shall require that at least one act of racketeering be an act of racketeering other than (i) an act indictable under 18 U.S.C ["mail fraud"] or U.S.C ["wire fraud"], or (ii) an act which is an 2
3 offense involving fraud in the sale of securities. Any person filing a private action under this subsection must concurrently notify the Attorney General in writing of the commencement of the action.... (Emphasis added.) B. The Dynamic of the Statute: Predicate Acts and Injuries to Business and Property The RICO statutory framework puts some powerful tools at the plaintiff's disposal. Under North Carolina's civil RICO framework, persons who engage in the commission of at least two predicate acts of racketeering ("predicate acts"), as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. 75- D3, and who thereby injure another in his business or property, may be held liable for their wrongdoing. As shown by 75-D3, the limits of what may constitute a predicate act are bounded primarily by the creativity of the lawyer. Everything from "[o]btaining property by false pretenses," N.C. Gen. Stat (1993), to "[m]alfeasance of corporat[e] officers and agents," N.C. Gen. Stat (1993), to the litany of offenses outlined by 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), to the old stand-bys, mail and wire fraud, can serve as predicate offenses. 1. Showing a Pattern of Predicate Acts If the plaintiff can show at least two predicate acts within four years of each other, the ends of which are "interrelated by distinguishing characteristics," and which are "not isolated and unrelated," and at least "one of these incidents occurred after October 1, 1986," you have the ingredients of a "pattern." It should be noted that the standard of proof for a predicate act is different in the civil context from the criminal. In the civil setting, the plaintiff need only establish her proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at , 105 S.Ct. at 3282; and see The Hon. David B. Sentelle, Civil Rico: The Judges' Perspective, and Some Notes on Practice for North Carolina Lawyers, 12 Campbell L. Rev. 145, (1990)(casting a disdainful eye at civil RICO). Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need only meet the pleading standards inherent to any complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. a. What Constitutes a Pattern? Frankly, no one knows the answer to this question. Various attempts have been made to offer litigants guidance on this issue, with little definitive success. See, e.g., H.J. Inc. et al. v. Northwestern Bell, 492 U.S. 229, , 109 S.Ct. 2893, (1989)("A pattern is an arrangement or order of things or activity"). N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-3(b) speaks of "at least two" predicate acts, 3
4 but goes on to refine the term by using words such as "interrelated" and "not isolated." Without question, under North Carolina's Act, two predicate acts, in and of themselves, may not be enough. Instead, as the H.J. Inc. Court stated, no standard for what constitutes a "pattern of racketeering activity" can be "fixed in advance with [] clarity... [and such a determination] must await future cases, absent a decision by Congress to revisit RICO to provide clearer guidance as to the Act's intended scope." Id., 492 U.S. at 243, 109 S.Ct. at North Carolina cases do not shed much light on the subject either. There are only three North Carolina state court cases which discuss civil RICO at any length: Kaplan, supra (discussing the North Carolina Act), Hoke v. E.F. Hutton, 91 N.C.App. 159, 370 S.E.2d 857 (1988)(discussing the federal version of civil RICO as applied by our state courts), and Thornburg v. Lot and Buildings at 800 Waughtown St., 107 N.C.App. 559, 421 S.E.2d 374 (1992)(discussing the forfeiture provision of North Carolina's Act). 1 None of these cases offers an in-depth treatment of RICO s pattern requirement. b. Guidance from the North Carolina decisions Unfortunately, only two North Carolina cases, Kaplan (a 2-1 decision), and Thornburg, 107 N.C.App. at , 421 S.E.2d at 376 (1992)(a forfeiture case), discuss, at any length, the "pattern" requirement of RICO. 1. The Kaplan decision In Kaplan, a medical doctor and his family (the "Kaplan plaintiffs") sued an anti-abortion organization and its members for picketing the family's residence and the doctor's place of business. Kaplan, 123 N.C.App. at 722, 475 S.E.2d at 250. The Kaplan plaintiffs, through their North Carolina civil RICO claim, alleged that the antiabortion group had committed predicate acts such as: "extortion; conspiracy to extort; attempted extortion; communication of threats; and transmittal of threatening writings." Id. at 724, 475 S.E.2d at 251. According to the Kaplan Court, plaintiffs contended "that, taken together, defendants['] alleged acts represent a pattern of racketeering activity prohibited under section 75D-4." Id. Thus, summary judgment should not have been granted on this issue. 1 It is now well-established that state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with federal district courts over federal civil RICO claims. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 467, 110 S.Ct. 792, 799 (1990); and see E.F. Hutton, 91 N.C.App. at 161, 370 S.E.2d at
5 The response of the Kaplan Court to the racketeering pattern issue was less than illuminating. With almost no ado, the Court stated: We assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence of a pattern of racketeering activity prohibited under section 75D-4." Neither the Kaplan majority, nor the lone dissenter, now retired Judge Clifton E. Johnson, expressed any comment as to just what facts, or how many, were necessary to reach this conclusion. Thus, the practitioner, reading Kaplan, is left to assume that the combination of pickets, organized demonstrations, and boycotts, spoken of sporadically throughout the opinion, formed the factual basis for the allegations of the predicate acts such as communicated threats. Furthermore, it must be assumed (given the subject matter giving rise to the RICO claim) that the pickets, etc., were interrelated enough to pass appellate scrutiny. 2. The Thornburg decision In Thornburg, the North Carolina Court of Appeals devoted a significant portion of its opinion to the "pattern" issue. However, much of the relevant analysis is nothing more than a recapitulation of 75D-3(c), which is the statute defining "[p]attern of racketeering activity." The Thornburg Court observed that [t]he General Assembly... did not intend for the RICO statute to apply to isolated or unrelated episodes of unlawful activity." Id. at 565, 421 S.E.2d at 377. Then the Court refined this statement by essentially restating it, through a verbatim quote of 75D-3. In other words, the Court defined the pattern statute by paraphrasing the pattern statute. Perhaps the Thornburg decision can be defined by the manner in which it affirmed the lower court's approval of a RICO forfeiture action against the defendant. In the second to last paragraph of its decision, the Thornburg Court stated: The trial court found and we agree that the defendant engaged in at least two incidents of racketeering activity that had the same or similar purposes and methods of commission; that these incidents were not isolated or unrelated; that they occurred after October 1, 1986; and that at least one incident occurred within a four year period of the other. Thus, two of defendant's gambling convictions alone would constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity" under [the civil RICO] Act. 2 2 The Thornburg defendant had been found guilty in criminal court on five counts of various gambling offenses. Such offenses are listed in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1); and as such, these violations are considered predicate acts under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-(c)(2). 5
6 Thornburg, 107 N.C.App. at 565, 421 S.E.2d at 378 (emphasis added). From this statement, we can make some observations about what the Thornburg Court considered a "pattern of racketeering activity" (at least in this instance). First, the Court went out of its way to note that "two of defendant's convictions alone would constitute a 'pattern'...." Id. Knowing, as we do, that each predicate act involved in the Thornburg decision revolved around illegal gambling, the case seems to intimate that similarities between predicate acts lessens the number of acts needed to form a pattern. Such an approach is supported by the federal case law, as shown by this comment from the United States Supreme Court in H.J. Inc., 492 U.S. at , 109 S.Ct. 2893, : [C]riminal conduct forms a pattern if it embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are related by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.... * * * What a plaintiff... must prove is continuity of racketeering activity, or its threat, simpliciter. * * * [T]he threat of continuity may be established by showing that the predicate acts are part of an ongoing entity's regular way of doing business... [or] where it is shown that the predicates are a regular way of conducting defendant's ongoing legitimate business (in the sense that it is not a business that exists for criminal purposes).... (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Thornburg decision, intentionally or not, appears to track the (still ill-defined) logic of H.J. Inc. In Thornburg, the RICO defendant utilized his business as a vehicle, over an unstated period of time, for illegal gambling (the "enterprise"). The gambling illegalities ranged from "possess[ion] [of] gambling devices," to "possessi[on of] numbers tickets," and were oriented toward "the same or similar purpose[]" of making such activities available to the public. Thornburg, 107 N.C.App. at , 421 S.E.2d at The "methods of commission" of these predicate acts were similar, i.e., they were oriented toward gambling services, and they were "distinguishing" and "interrelated" for the same reasons. 6
7 All told, there is little guidance to be found elsewhere on what constitutes a surefire "pattern of racketeering" under either the North Carolina Act or federal RICO. In essence, the courts have resorted to "a case by case approach," under which "no mechanical test can determine the existence of a RICO pattern." American Bankers Ins. Co. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 699 F.Supp. 1174, 1176 (E.D.N.C. 1988), aff'd 900 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1990). In other words, there is no clear definition of a "pattern," and the RICO practitioner is advised to proceed cautiously and to plead every predicate act possible. Otherwise, the claim may be dismissed. c. RICO Damages: Injuries to Business and Property 1. Kaplan redux In Kaplan, one of the central issues was whether the plaintiffs had demonstrated any injury "cognizable under NC RICO." Kaplan, 123 N.C.App. at 726, 475 S.E.2d at 252. The Kaplan plaintiffs claimed "loss of the use and enjoyment of their home, as a result of the [abortion protester's] appearance targeted at [their] home." Id. For statutory guidance, the Kaplan Court turned to N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-8(c)("Available RICO civil remedies"), which reads, in pertinent part: Any innocent person who is injured or damaged in his business or property by reason of any violation of G.S. 75D-4 involving a pattern of racketeering activity shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and reasonable attorneys fees. Id., 123 N.C.App. at 726, 475 S.E.2d at 252 (emphasis added). Similarly, federal RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) provides recovery to any person "injured in his business or property...." The Kaplan Court observed that it did not perceive [any] legally significant distinction between the languages of [N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-8(c) and 18 U.S.C (c)]." Kaplan, 123 N.C.App. at 729 n.3, 475 S.E.2d at 254 n.3. Accordingly, the Kaplan Court turned to federal cases for its authority on RICO injuries. Id. at 727, 475 S.E.2d at The Court found that two injury limitations operate generally on all RICO claims. First, "a showing of injury requires proof of concrete loss..." and "[s]econd, it is clear that personal injuries are not compensable under RICO." Id.(quoting Oscar v. University Students Co-op. Ass'n., 965 F.2d 783, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1020, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992)). Based upon this injury 7
8 requirement, the Kaplan Court determined that loss of use and enjoyment of one's residence or business, because of a nuisance created by picketing and protests, was not a "concrete loss" compensable through RICO. Id. at 726, 475 S.E.2d at 252. The Kaplan Court took pains to distinguish an injury claim based upon "loss of enjoyment," from a claim based upon "damages for the diminution in value of their house." Id. Insofar as the Kaplan plaintiffs' injuries sounded in terms of "personal discomfort and annoyance," the Court observed, such damages were "not a tangible injury to property... because the market value of plaintiffs' [property] interests [had] not declined." Id. (citation and internal brackets omitted). 2. The E.F. Hutton decision The E.F. Hutton case provides further insight into the injury requirements of civil RICO, through its analysis of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)'s "business or property" injury provision (the federal analogue to N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-8(c)). In E.F. Hutton, the plaintiffs alleged that a national stock brokerage firm (the "brokerage firm") had illegally "churned" their accounts, causing them to suffer significant investment losses. Contemporaneous to the stock churning alleged by plaintiffs, the brokerage firm was engaged in "an enormous check-kiting scheme which had artificially inflated the market price [of the brokerage firm's] stock." E.F. Hutton, 91 N.C.App. at 162, 370 S.E.2d at 859. The E.F. Hutton plaintiffs claimed that they had relied on the brokerage firm's reputation in establishing a trading account there. Id. a. The RICO "Nexus" requirement The E.F. Hutton plaintiffs alleged that the brokerage firm's "check-kiting scheme gave rise to a pattern of racketeering which affected interstate commerce." 3 Id. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that, under 1964(c), a plaintiff must "show, and can only recover to the extent that, the injury in his business or property has been caused by the conduct constituting the violation (of 1962), or the predicate act." E.F. Hutton, 91 N.C.App. at 163, 370 S.E.2d at 860. Accordingly, the Court determined, plaintiffs could not "show that defendant's check-kiting scheme directly or indirectly 'injured' their investments.... [Thus,] [w]e see no connection between defendant's stock churning activity and the defendant's... check-kiting scheme." Id. This connection was paramount, the Court determined, because 1962(c) requires a "nexus between the racketeering activity or 3 North Carolina's Act contains no "interstate commerce" requirement, thus broadening the field of potential defendants to a state RICO claimant. 8
9 predicate act" and plaintiff's injuries. Id. at 162, 370 S.E.2d at 859 (emphasis added). This "nexus" requirement has its roots in Sedima, wherein the Court held that "the compensable [RICO] injury necessarily is the harm caused by the predicate acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern... [a]ny recoverable damages will flow from the commission of the predicate acts." Id., 473 U.S. at 496, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 (emphasis added). Despite this straightforward language from Sedima, many federal circuits continued to insist that 1964(c) claimants prove a "racketeering injury;" that is, the RICO injury must arise from "the defendant's investment or use of the racketeering income (the 'investment use' rule) itself," not just from the predicate acts. Busby v. Crown Supply, 896 F.2d 833, 837 (1990)(citing federal cases espousing the "investment use" rule). The Fourth Circuit, through Busby, disavowed the investment rule, "[b]ecause the use or investment of funds gotten from racketeering activity is not traceable, [and as such,] no causal connection between the use or investment of illgotten cash and an injury to plaintiff is provable." Id. at 839 (citation and internal brackets omitted). Citing the above statement from Sedima, the Busby Court found no basis for a "racketeering injury" requirement. Id. Instead, RICO claimants under 1964(c) should "employ a traditional causation analysis in determining whether a RICO [injury has occurred]." Id. 896 F.2d at 839. Thus, the Busby Court, like the E.F. Hutton Court, reached the conclusion that damages in RICO flow from the predicate acts themselves, rather than from any so-called "racketeering injury." Assumably then, the E.F. Hutton RICO claimants would have prevailed if they could have demonstrated a "nexus" or causation between the illegal check-kiting and their investment in the brokerage firm. III. Damages in Summary Neither Kaplan nor E.F. Hutton are instructive enough to provide a map through the RICO damages minefield. However, these cases offer clear precedent for the following propositions: 1. N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-8(c), which requires injury or damage to "business or property, will be read strictly. Ephemeral damages, such as "loss of enjoyment of one's home" will not surpass a motion to dismiss. 2. Damages in the nature of personal injury are not compensable under RICO. Thus, no matter how egregious the predicate acts committed by the RICO defendant, no claim will lie based on such damages. Damages need to be ascertainable and demonstrable. For instance, if you have 9
10 alleged mail fraud as a predicate act, and the fraud resulted in lost profits, or the purchase of defective machinery or the like, these injuries should suffice under the Act. 3. A RICO plaintiff need not show a "racketeering injury" in order to recover. In other words, the "investment rule" discussed explicitly by Busby and implicitly by E.F. Hutton will not apply in either a state or federal RICO action brought in state court. Because of the Kaplan Court's ruling that "no legally significant distinction [exists] between the language of [N.C. Gen. Stat. 75D-8 and 18 U.S.C. 1964(c),]" id., 123 N.C.App. at 729, 475 S.E.2d at 254, and the wholesale analogizing between the state and federal versions of RICO engaged in by our courts, the E.F. Hutton "nexus" rule will most assuredly apply. This means the RICO plaintiff must demonstrate an injury resulting from one of the predicate acts alleged in the complaint -- or a "nexus," if you will. If these items are addressed, you will have significantly reduced the risk of having your state (or federal) RICO claim dismissed due to a faulty damages theory under 75D-8. IV. Conclusion There are no guarantees with RICO -- state or federal. The statute is ambiguously drawn, disliked by the judiciary, and missteps are legion (as shown by the appellate cases). However, if a civil RICO claim can be properly alleged on a given set of facts, it will certainly apply to "legitimate" businesses and other groups. A civil RICO judgment under North Carolina law will provide the successful plaintiff with two desirable things: (1) payment of reasonable attorneys fees by the defendant, and (2) a mandatory imposition of treble damages by the Court. Because the treble damages provision of the Act is mandatory, it differs materially from its statutory kin, the unfair and deceptive trade practice provision of Chapter 75 of the General Statutes. See generally, Chastain v. Wall, 78 N.C.App. 350, 337 S.E.2d 150 (1985), cert. denied, 316 N.C. 375, 342 S.E.2d 891 (1986) (allowing the trial court to decide, as a matter of law, whether certain facts are unfair or deceptive under Chapter 75). For this reason alone, the plaintiff's bar is well advised to get acquainted with civil RICO. Although rarely used, it is an important weapon in the plaintiff's arsenal. 10
396 F.3d 265, 176 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2513, 150 Lab.Cas. P 10,447, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,820 (Cite as: 396 F.3d 265)
Page 1 United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. William F. ANDERSON, Jr.; Barry F. Breslin, Appellants v. Jack AYLING; Brian Kada; Paul Vanderwoude; Thomas H. Kohn; International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationPATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL RICO LITIGATION
FORM 9 PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL RICO LITIGATION INSTRUCTION 9.1 General Introductory Instruction for Actions Based on 18 U.S.C. 1962(a), (b), (c) and (d) As jurors, you have now heard all of
More informationCivil RICO Liability - The Second Circuit's Interpretation of the PSLRA Amendment has Broad Implications for Victims of Securities Fraud Conspiracy
SMU Law Review Volume 65 2012 Civil RICO Liability - The Second Circuit's Interpretation of the PSLRA Amendment has Broad Implications for Victims of Securities Fraud Conspiracy Michael Buscher Follow
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-24-2005 Anderson v. Ayling Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 04-1180 Follow this and additional
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 75D 1
Chapter 75D. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. 75D-1. Short title. This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the North Carolina Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
More informationMail and Wire Fraud: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law
Mail and Wire Fraud: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law July 21, 2011 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for
More informationH.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.: Another Contribution To RICO Confusion
Louisiana Law Review Volume 50 Number 6 July 1990 H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.: Another Contribution To RICO Confusion Dawn Theresa Trabeau Repository Citation Dawn Theresa Trabeau, H.J.
More informationCivil RICO - First Amendment - Third Circuit Applies Racketeering Statute to Civil Protestors - Anti-Abortion Protestors Found Liable
Volume 35 Issue 3 Article 8 1990 Civil RICO - First Amendment - Third Circuit Applies Racketeering Statute to Civil Protestors - Anti-Abortion Protestors Found Liable Marguerite C. Gualtieri Follow this
More informationOrganized Crime And Racketeering
U.S. Attorneys» U.S. Attorneys' Manual» Title 9: Criminal 9 110.000 Organized Crime And Racketeering 9 110.010 Introduction 9 110.100 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 9 110.101 Division
More informationCase 2:09-cv JHS Document 92 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00679-JHS Document 92 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE COLEMAN AND JANELLE BOWMER, on behalf of themselves
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION DEFENDANT S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Case Number: XXXXXXX XXXXXX, Defendant. DEFENDANT S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM DEFENDANT, XXXXXXXX,
More informationScheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
DePaul Journal of Health Care Law Volume 10 Issue 3 Spring 2007 Article 7 Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. Amee Lakhani Follow this and additional works at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/jhcl
More informationSENATE, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 208th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED JUNE 15, 1998
SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY 0th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED JUNE, Sponsored by: Senator WAYNE R. BRYANT District (Camden and Gloucester) Senator GARRY J. FURNARI District (Bergen, Essex and Passaic) SYNOPSIS
More informationBuilding Your Civil RICO Action From a Claims and Legal Standpoint to Withstand a Rule 11 Motion and/or a Rule 12b(6) Motion to Dismiss
Building Your Civil RICO Action From a Claims and Legal Standpoint to Withstand a Rule 11 Motion and/or a Rule 12b(6) Motion to Dismiss Presenters: Lisa K. Anderson, Smith, Rolfes, & Skavdahl James Carlson,
More informationAlexandra Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-5-2016 Alexandra Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationCase 1:05-cr MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:05-cr-20770-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, GLORIA FLOREZ VELEZ, BENEDICT P. KUEHNE, and OSCAR SALDARRIAGA OCHOA, Defendants.
More informationRECOVERING THE PROCEEDS OF FRAUD
RECOVERING THE PROCEEDS OF FRAUD World Headquarters the gregor building 716 West Ave Austin, TX 78701-2727 USA PART ONE: THE LAW IN A FRAUD RECOVERY CASE I. LEGAL CAUSES OF ACTION IN GENERAL A fraud victim
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS
More informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationCase 1:96-cv KMW-HBP Document Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT F RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO) 1
Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 368-7 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT F RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO) 1 I. RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO)...1
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:18-CV-593 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Case 1:18-cv-00593-CCE-JLW Document 14 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHANDRA MILLIKIN MCLAUGHLIN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:18-CV-593
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC LEE S. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DKT. NOS. 14, 21)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN JENNIFER MYERS, Case No. 15-cv-965-pp Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLLECT INC., and AURORA HEALTH CARE INC., Defendants. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
More informationNO. COA13-2 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 June Appeal by defendant and plaintiff from order entered 27
NO. COA13-2 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 June 2013 LEE FRANKLIN BOOTH, Plaintiff, v. Wake County No. 12 CVS 180 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant. Appeal by defendant and plaintiff from order
More informationClick to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR REPRINT Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from: http://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/sites/lawjournalnewsletters/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-thetravel-act/
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCase 3:07-cv MHP Document 69 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 13
Case :0-cv-0-MHP Document Filed 0//00 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELE MAZUR, individually and for all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, EBAY INC., HOT
More informationMEMORANDUM. Criminal Procedure and Remedies Issues Recommended for Commission Study
MEMORANDUM From: To: cc: Criminal Procedure and Remedies Working Group All Commissioners Andrew J. Heimert and Commission Staff Date: December 21, 2004 Re: Criminal Procedure and Remedies Issues Recommended
More informationRECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES
RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES March 6, 2013 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Aiding and Abetting / Accomplice Liability / 924(c) Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2014 WL 839184
More informationCase 3:15-cr EMC Document 83 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.
Case :-cr-00-emc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN BAIRES-REYES, Defendant. Case No. -cr-00-emc- ORDER
More informationTHIS MATTER COMES before this Court on Plaintiff G. Kenneth Orndorff s and Third-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00618-GCM G. KENNETH ORNDORFF, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) LARRY RALEY MARIA
More informationEnterprise Liability in Private Civil RICO A ctions
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 45 Issue 4 Article 12 Fall 9-1-1988 Enterprise Liability in Private Civil RICO A ctions Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr
More informationCase 1:15-cr KAM Document 306 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 5871
Case 1:15-cr-00637-KAM Document 306 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 5871 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationObstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws
Obstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 17, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22783
More informationThe United States Law Week. Case Alert & Legal News
The United States Law Week Case Alert & Legal News Reproduced with permission from The United States Law Week, 84 U.S.L.W. 1711, 5/19/16. Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationFamilies Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C
Families Against Mandatory Minimums 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 202-822-6700 www.famm.org Summary of The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005 Title I Criminal
More informationShould the Treble Damages Provision of RICO be Revisited by Congress?
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Business Law Review 4-1-1990 Should the Treble Damages Provision of RICO be Revisited by Congress? Douglas Richard Blecki Follow
More informationRICO's Rule in Securities Fraud Litigation: Should It Be Facilitated or Restricted;Legislative Reform
Journal of Legislation Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 13 5-1-1995 RICO's Rule in Securities Fraud Litigation: Should It Be Facilitated or Restricted;Legislative Reform Dana L. Wolff Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D02-503
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-503 JAMES OTTE Appellee. / ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT AND THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL
More informationReves v. Ernst & Young: Is RICO Corrupt?
Louisiana Law Review Volume 54 Number 6 The Civil Rights Act of 1991: A Symposium July 1994 Reves v. Ernst & Young: Is RICO Corrupt? J. Todd Benson Repository Citation J. Todd Benson, Reves v. Ernst &
More informationReves v. Ernst & Young: The Elimination of Professional Liability Under RICO
Catholic University Law Review Volume 43 Issue 3 Spring 1994 Article 11 1994 Reves v. Ernst & Young: The Elimination of Professional Liability Under RICO Catherine M. Clarkin Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12CR-235
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12CR-235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) PHILLIP D. MURPHY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER
More informationMitigation of Damages Defense Against Title VII Wrongful Termination Claim and the Effect of Claimant s Termination from Interim Employer
ATTORNEYS Joseph Borchelt Ian Mitchell PRACTICE AREAS Employment Practices Defense Mitigation of Damages Defense Against Title VII Wrongful Termination Claim and the Effect of Claimant s Termination from
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED NOV 26 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AHMED SARCHIL KAZZAZ
More information4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule On RICO's Reach
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule
More informationRACKETEERING 1 (N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2c)
Approved 2/14/11 RACKETEERING 1 Count of the indictment charges defendant with racketeering. [READ COUNT OF INDICTMENT] That section of our statutes provides in pertinent part: It is unlawful for any person
More informationCase 1:17-cr ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, Jr., and RICHARD W. GATES III, Crim.
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0307n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0307n.06 No. 09-5907 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, BRIAN M. BURR, On Appeal
More information18 U.S.C & 1343 (Mail / Wire / Carrier Fraud--Elements) Committee Comment
18 U.S.C. 1341 & 1343 (Mail / Wire / Carrier Fraud--Elements) To sustain the charge of [mail] [wire][carrier] fraud, the government must prove the following propositions: First, that the defendant knowingly
More informationEDMUND BOYLE, PETITIONER. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FILED EDMUND BOYLE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION GREGORY
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COME Defendants Michael P. Daniel, M.D. and Daniel Urological Center, Inc.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ALAMANCE BRIAN S. COPE, M.D., v. Plaintiff, MICHAEL P. DANIEL, M.D. and DANIEL UROLOGICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants. IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION
Donaldson et al v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ANTHONY DONALDSON and WANDA DONALDSON, individually and on behalf
More informationBUSINESS LAW. Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes
BUSINESS LAW Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes Learning Objectives List and describe the essential elements of a crime. Describe criminal procedure, including arrest, indictment, arraignment, and
More informationDURA PHARMACEUTICALS v. BROUDO: THE UNLIKELY TORT OF SECURITIES FRAUD
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS v. BROUDO: THE UNLIKELY TORT OF SECURITIES FRAUD OLEG CROSS* I. INTRODUCTION Created pursuant to section 10 of the 1934 Securities Act, 1 Rule 10b-5 is a cornerstone of the federal
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
More informationCivil RICO, Protesters, and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Combination
Missouri Law Review Volume 60 Issue 1 Winter 1995 Article 11 Winter 1995 Civil RICO, Protesters, and the First Amendment: A Constitutional Combination Timothy S. Millman Follow this and additional works
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07 1309 EDMUND BOYLE, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [June
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 43 1
Article 43. Nuisance and Other Wrongs. 1-538.1. Strict liability for damage to person or property by minors. Any person or other legal entity shall be entitled to recover actual damages suffered in an
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HENRY LO, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-8327 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HENRY LO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF
More informationOrder Code RS22038 Updated May 11, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Securities Fraud: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Su
Order Code RS22038 Updated May 11, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Securities Fraud: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo Summary Michael V. Seitzinger Legislative Attorney American
More information2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
129 S.Ct. 2237 Page 1 Supreme Court of the United States Edmund BOYLE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 07 1309. Argued Jan. 14, 2009. Decided June 8, 2009. Background: Defendant was convicted in the
More informationCase 3:14-cv FAB Document 117 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case 3:14-cv-01616-FAB Document 117 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO MEDICAL EMERGENCY GROUP, INC. Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 14-1616
More informationCase 8:13-cv RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:13-cv-03056-RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRENDA LEONARD-RUFUS EL, * RAHN EDWARD RUFUS EL * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil
More informationPlaintiff(s), & TRUST CO., et al. Defendant(s).
SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. RALPH P. FRANCO, Justice TRIAL/IA& PART 13 ALAN GUTHARTZ Plaintiff(s), NASSAU COUNTY -against- INDEX No.: 30943199 MOTION SEQ. #l&2 THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 503 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 16394 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE No. 10-cr-20403
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 PJH 0 0 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 December Appeal by defendants from Amended Judgment entered 8 March
NO. COA12-636 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 December 2012 SOUTHERN SEEDING SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 09 CVS 12411 W.C. ENGLISH, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
More information2014 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WISCONSIN
2014 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WISCONSIN FRAMEWORK ISSUE 1: CRIMINALIZATION OF DOMESTIC MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING Legal Components: 1.1 The state human trafficking law addresses sex trafficking and clearly
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUNITED COMPUTER CAPITAL CORPORATION and UNITED RECOVERY SERVICES CO., a Division of UNITED COMPUTER CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, 5:02-CV-1431
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh UNITED COMPUTER CAPITAL CORPORATION and UNITED RECOVERY SERVICES CO., a Division of UNITED
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 919 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996 LETITIA L. ELLIOTT et al. v. SCHER, MUHER, LOWEN, BASS, QUARTNER, P.A., et al. Moylan, Cathell, Eyler, JJ. Opinion by Cathell,
More informationVIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY SESSION
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 691 An Act to amend and reenact 9.1-902, 17.1-805, 18.2-46.1, 18.2-356, 18.2-357, 18.2-513, 19.2-215.1, and 19.2-386.35 of the Code of Virginia and to
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-60 (BAILEY)
Barr v. NCB Management Services, Incorporated et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG LINDA BARR, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-60
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv RJC-DSC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv-00100-RJC-DSC CHRISTOPHER STRIANESE, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC. et al., Defendants. ORDER THIS
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 September 2012
NO. COA12-131 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 September 2012 SUNTRUST BANK, Plaintiff, v. Forsyth County No. 10 CVS 983 BRYANT/SUTPHIN PROPERTIES, LLC, CALVERT R. BRYANT, JR. AND DONALD H. SUTPHIN,
More informationThe Continuing Conflict Over Limitations on RICO'S Civil Injury Element
Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 20 Number 3 pp.531-574 Spring 1986 The Continuing Conflict Over Limitations on RICO'S Civil Injury Element Betty Gloss Recommended Citation Betty Gloss, The Continuing
More information2015 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NORTH DAKOTA
2015 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NORTH DAKOTA FRAMEWORK ISSUE 1: CRIMINALIZATION OF DOMESTIC MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING Legal Components: 1.1 The state sex trafficking law addresses sex trafficking and clearly
More informationGervase v. Superior Court (Prudential Securities, Inc.) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1218, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 875. [No. C Third Dist. Jan 26, 1995.
Gervase v. Superior Court (Prudential Securities, Inc.) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1218, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 [No. C017925. Third Dist. Jan 26, 1995.] STEVEN GERVASE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PAYCOM BILLING SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, v. Plaintiff, PAYMENT RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, a Nevada corporation;
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 2898 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, ANTWON JENKINS, v. Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA03-566 Filed: 18 May 2004 1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements--motion to suppress--miranda warnings- -voluntariness The trial court did not err
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MARTIN CISNEROS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 3:11-0804 ) Judge Campbell/Bryant METRO NASHVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL) et
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-7-2002 USA v. Saxton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-1326 Follow this and additional
More informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RS22361 January 6, 2006 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Venue: A Brief Look at Federal Law Governing Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Summary Charles Doyle Senior Specialist
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. v. Dukes IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-14344 D. C. Docket No. 03-00174-CR-ODE-1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCES J. DUKES, a.k.a.
More informationdifferent types of paper. (Id.) Plaintiffs have locations in
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al Doc. 104 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.
More informationCrimes of Violence Updates. Michael Dwyer and Brocca Morrison Office of the Federal Public Defender, EDMO
Crimes of Violence Updates Michael Dwyer and Brocca Morrison Office of the Federal Public Defender, EDMO United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th Cir. 2018) United States v. Naylor, 887 F.3d 397 (8th
More informationSenate Testimony on the ADA Amendments Act
University of Michigan Law School From the SelectedWorks of Samuel R Bagenstos July 15, 2008 Senate Testimony on the ADA Amendments Act Samuel R Bagenstos Available at: https://works.bepress.com/samuel_bagenstos/24/
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDW-ARL Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 90
Case 2:16-cv-06321-LDW-ARL Document 1-1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 90 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES
More informationThe RICO Enterprise Controversy: Judicial Legislation versus Judicial Interpretation
Pace Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 1982 Article 4 January 1982 The RICO Enterprise Controversy: Judicial Legislation versus Judicial Interpretation Kirk Patrick Thornton Follow this and additional works
More informationCase 0:10-cv MJD-FLN Document 1 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Court File No.
Case 0:10-cv-01142-MJD-FLN Document 1 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Wells Fargo & Company, John Does 1-10, vs. Plaintiff, Defendants. Court File No.: COMPLAINT
More informationChapter FRAUD OFFENSES. Introduction to Fraud Instructions (current through December 1, 2009)
Chapter 10.00 FRAUD OFFENSES Introduction to Fraud Instructions (current through December 1, 2009) The pattern instructions cover three fraud offenses with elements instructions: Instruction 10.01 Mail
More informationNO MORE SIMPLE BATTERY IN WEST VIRGINIA: THE NEWLY AMENDED AND Katherine Moore*
21 WEST VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. 1 NO MORE SIMPLE BATTERY IN WEST VIRGINIA: THE NEWLY AMENDED 61-2-9 AND 61-2-28 Katherine Moore* I. INTRODUCTION... 21 II. UNITED STATES V. WHITE... 21 A. The Fourth
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
Case :-cv-000-h-blm Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 0 DEBRA HOSLEY, et al., vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, NATIONAL PYGMY GOAT ASSOCIATION; and DOES TO 0,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 5:08-CV D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 5:08-CV-00131-D SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, Inc., UMG RECORDINGS Inc., ELECTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, Inc.,
More information8.121 MAIL FRAUD SCHEME TO DEFRAUD OR TO OBTAIN MONEY OR PROPERTY BY FALSE PROMISES (18 U.S.C. 1341)
8.121 MAIL FRAUD SCHEME TO DEFRAUD OR TO OBTAIN MONEY OR PROPERTY BY FALSE PROMISES (18 U.S.C. 1341) The defendant is charged in [Count of] the indictment with mail fraud in violation of Section 1341 of
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS22361 Venue: A Brief Look at Federal Law Governing Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Charles Doyle, American Law Division
More information