Quesenberry v. Cleveland

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that RICO claims “require[] a showing of proximate caus[ation], meaning some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged”
• affirming a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of proximate cause
• refusing to “assume” that “potential intervening causes” in an indirect causal chain would not have reduced plaintiff’s insurance claim regardless of the alleged fraud
• finding no proximate causation because the subcontractor’s alleged RICO injury—not being fully paid for its work in repairing flood damage—was derivative of the property owner’s own loss from being underpaid by its insurer, which illegally undervalued the owner’s claim
• focus of RICO inquiry is “directness,” not “on whether the harm to the RICO plaintiff was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct or even whether it was ‘the intended consequence[] of [the defendant’s] behavior’” (first alteration in original
• treating civil RICO standing as a 12(b)(6) issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).