D. Lawrence Burdick v. American Express Company

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs claim that he was fired as an “integral part” of the illegal scheme rather than in retaliation for reporting it
• no standing for stockbroker impeded by employer’s frauds in his “ ‘ability to service his customers, keep them happy and earn a living for himself’ ”
• the purpose of civil RICO liability does not extend to deterring any illegal act such as retaliatory firings for which there are state and common law remedies
• Any injury to defendant’s customers — who were the intended victims of defendant’s alleged mail and securities frauds— could not be used to satisfy the requirement that plaintiff “show that the damage to his business or property resulted from the ... fraud.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).