Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Cauble was convicted in January 1982 on ten counts: two counts of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, three violations of the Interstate Commerce Travel Act, and four counts of misapplication of bank funds. He was sentenced to ten concurrent terms of five years.
state court jurisdiction over civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims Sullivan v. Zebley: 493 U.S. 521 (1990) determination of SSI benefits for children Washington v. Harper: 494 U.S. 210 (1990) permissibility of involuntary treatment of psychotic inmates United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez: 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Yegiazaryan and CMB Monaco moved to dismiss Smagin's RICO complaint, arguing that his claims were foreclosed upon by the Supreme Court's decision in RJR Nabisco, which held that a private RICO suit must allege a "domestic", rather than "foreign" injury. As such, they argued that Smagin (who lived in Russia at all relevant times) had not ...
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. [1] was a case in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held several major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act [2] by engaging in numerous acts of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about nicotine addiction and the health effects ...
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund.
Some statutes allow for an award of treble damages only if there is a showing that the violation was willful. For example, "up to three times the amount found or assessed" may be awarded by a court in the United States for willful patent infringement . [ 4 ]
Virginia has a motion called a "motion to strike the evidence", which functions exactly the same as a motion for judgment as a matter of law in most other courts. Such a motion is made at the close of evidence (before the jury deliberates, if there is a jury). Where such a motion is granted, summary judgment will be entered.
Whenever a monetary judgment is issued by a Virginia court, the clerk of the court will automatically issue a fi fa once twenty-one days have passed from the entry of the judgment (this is the period of time that the losing party before the court has to obtain relief from the court in the form of a reconsideration or reduction in the judgment ...