Nicholson v. WINDHAM

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the dismissal of RICO and RICO conspiracy claims when the plaintiff failed to establish she sustained a direct, as opposed to indirect, injury from the alleged predicate acts
• affirming grant of motion to dismiss plaintiff’s RICO claim because defendants alleged predicate acts — including theft, mail fraud, and obstruction — were not directed at her, and her injury (premature employment termination) was not a direct result of the racketeering activities
• not “all co-workers are immune from suit for tortious interference” with an employment contract; such immunity is available only to those “co-employees engaged in conduct ‘within the scope of their authority’ ”
• “[a]s a mandatory condition to asserting [a] RICO claim[], [a plaintiff] must show a direct nexus between at least one of the predicate acts [alleged] and the injury she purportedly sustained”
• trial court erred in dismissing intentional infliction of emotional distress claim premised upon employers’ conduct in soliciting plaintiff to participate in illegal real estate scheme and instructing her not to disclose it
• “[T]he injury-[plaintiffs] termination [based on her refusal to participate in her employer’s criminal seheme]stemmed from her refusal to participate rather than the solicitation itself. Under these circumstances, the harm is indirect rather than direct.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).