Deborah Baker and Richard Enyeart v. Ibp, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, when “[a]pplied to claims in federal court, and arising under federal law,” Garmon does not affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction but is instead an abstention doctrine, “allocating to an administrative agency the first crack at certain matters”
• noting “the difficulty of establishing that unlawful hiring of aliens cause[s] a diminution in [documented workers’] wages” because “[w]orkers can change employers ... [which] should cause equilibration throughout the labor market”
• plaintiffs failed adequately to allege that defendant was conducting the affairs of an enterprise when “[t]he nub of the complaint is that [the defendant] operates itself unlawfully”
• “Without a difference between the defendant and the ‘enterprise’ there can be no violation of RICO.”
• “Without a difference between the defendant and the ‘enterprise’ there can be no violation of RICO.”
• “Without a difference between the defendant and the ‘enterprise’ there can be no violation of RICO.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).