Deutchland Enterprises, Ltd. v. Burger King Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding (continued...) No. 05-1518 9 Parolin, 239 F.3d 922, 926 n.2 (7th Cir. 2001) (upholding the district court’s application of the amended Guidelines, given that the defendant “engaged in conduct subsequent to the effective date of the 1995 amendments”
• no withdrawal where defendant resigned from corrupt law firm but continued to receive a percentage of recoveries
• cited by Pemberton, rejecting argument “that the mail fraud claims date from the time the fraud was conceived”
• “Congress did not wish to permit instances of federal or state court perjury as such to constitute a pattern of RICO racketeering acts.”
• “[T]he RICO claim in this case ... seeks to have this Court in effect decide the merits of lawsuits or proceedings that are already pending between these same parties in several other jurisdictions ....”
• \use of _____ the mail fraud offense as a RICO predicate act cannot be suspended simply because perjury is part of the means for perpetrating the fraud\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).