Barry v. R. M. Bailey Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a business competitor could bring an action under the statute as long as the conduct affected the public interest in New York
• holding that a business competitor could bring an action under the statute as long as the conduct affected the public interest in New York
• concluding that individual defendant and his two corporations in distinct lines of business were necessarily distinct from each other as well as from the alleged association-in-fact enterprise
• holding that the plaintiff had adequately shown harm to the public interest, in part because defendants “gave false information ... [to] a regulatory agency primarily concerned with the safety of the public”
• finding that related corporations with distinct markets and roles in the scheme were distinct from the RICO enterprise comprised of each of them together
• holding a president of a company has personal knowledge of his business to sufficient to testify to calculation of lost profits under Rule 701

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).