Grimes v. Placid Refining 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 six purported instances of fraud over eight years did not make out a claim of racketeering based on a theory that such fraud was the regular way of conducting business
• finding statement was not defamation per se when it accused plaintiff of stealing watch during business transaction when plaintiff did not allege his business substantially involved watches or jewelry
• declining to address the predicate acts of witness tampering, extortion, and money laundering where the amended complaint \adequately pleads ... individual instances of alleged mail or wire fraud corresponding to the allegedly fraudulent [scheme]\
• statements accusing plaintiff of stealing a Patek Phillipe watch were irrelevant to his status as a wholesaler of foodstuffs
• “A claim for money had and received is similarly precluded where there is an express contract between the parties addressing the same subject matter.”
• accusation that plaintiff stole a watch was not defamatory per se under the “trade, business or profession exception” because plaintiff’s business was in food sales, as opposed to watch or jewelry sales

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).