264 F. Supp. 2d 367 - D'ADDARIO v. Geller’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“would allege 'that defendants employed the same scheme with respect to approximately 25 other Maryland individuals and corporations.’ ” Id. The court continued, noting: “If these allegations are pled with the requisite particularity, they would satisfy H.J. Inc.'s requirement of a 'regular way of conducting defendant’s ongoing legitimate business,’ that carries with it a distinct threat of future racketeering activity.” Id. (emphasis added). The logical reading of this language indicates that the Fourth Circuit does not find the requisite particularity met when plaintiffs simply allege that a given number of others were defrauded. This is exactly what the Williams have done, see supra note 10, which is not enough to meet the pleading requirements in force in this circuit. . Specifically, the Williams have added facts and allegations relevant only to the following counts: Count One, violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA”), 15. U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because defendants ... have been validly served pursuant to RICO's nationwide service provision, in personam jurisdiction over them is established, provided that it comports with due process considerations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no evidence in the record suggesting extreme inconvenience or unfairness in litigating in this forum....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.