Jennings v. Auto Meter Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that this court “repeatedly reject[s] RICO claims that rely so heavily on mail and wire fraud alle- gations to establish a pattern”
• finding that even where plaintiff implied the fraud was an ongoing act, that “the alleged misrepresentation was a singular predicate act”
• explaining that this court “repeatedly reject[s] RICO claims that rely so heavily on mail and wire fraud alle- gations to establish a pattern”
• finding no pattern in part based on the fact that plaintiff was the only identifiable victim
• finding that ten months was too short to establish continuity
• treating as mail and wire fraud “individual acts [that] violate multiple statutes” where the essence of the acts was mail and wire fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).