E.D. North Carolina· 7/30/1993
Riley v. Murdock
Citations
- 828 F. Supp. 1215
- 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11009
- 1993 WL 294591
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Although Rule 9(b) does not require the elucidation of every detail of the alleged fraud, it does require more than a bare assertion that such cause of action exists. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. [v. Akzo, N.V., 770 F.Supp. [1053,] 1074 [ (D.Md.1991
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Britt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Breeden v. Richmond Community CollegeM.D. North Carolina· 1997-02-14· cited 94×
- Madison River Management Co. v. Business Management Software Corp.M.D. North Carolina· 2005-01-05· cited 31×
- Godfredson v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.E.D. North Carolina· 2005-08-15· cited 29×
- Dealers Supply Co., Inc. v. Cheil Industries, Inc.M.D. North Carolina· 2004-12-13· cited 25×
- Riley v. MurdockE.D. North Carolina· 1995-06-13· cited 16×
- Liner v. DiCresceM.D. North Carolina· 1994-09-09· cited 14×
- Goldstein v. Malcolm G. Fries & Associates, Inc.E.D. Virginia· 1999-10-29· cited 13×
- CBP RESOURCES, INC. v. SGS Control Services, Inc.M.D. North Carolina· 2005-05-17· cited 7×
- Wilson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.S.D. West Virginia· 1997-06-27· cited 5×
- Holland v. Cline Bros. Min. Co., Inc.S.D. West Virginia· 1995-02-01· cited 2×
Cites
38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court· 1974-04-17· cited 13,385×
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court· 1962-05-14· cited 7,008×
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1983-06-24· cited 3,550×
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court· 1971-04-05· cited 1,972×
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court· 1990-12-03· cited 1,857×
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. GilbertsonSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 1,199×
- FMC Corp. v. HollidaySupreme Court· 1990-11-27· cited 950×
- Martin v. WilksSupreme Court· 1989-08-11· cited 565×
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. DanielSupreme Court· 1979-01-16· cited 536×
- Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.Ninth Circuit· 1986-12-24· cited 385×
- Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.D. Maryland· 1991-08-15· cited 231×
- Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.Second Circuit· 1992-08-31· cited 231×
- Hermann Hospital v. Meba Medical & Benefits PlanFifth Circuit· 1988-05-26· cited 217×
- Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1927-02-21· cited 169×
- Menasco, Inc. v. WassermanFourth Circuit· 1989-09-28· cited 147×
- Perry v. PIE Nationwide, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 1989-04-10· cited 104×
- The Sommers Drug Stores Company Employee Profit Sharing Trust, Cross-Appellee v. Walter N. Corrigan and Corrigan Enterprises, Inc., Cross-AppellantsFifth Circuit· 1989-08-31· cited 94×
- Lipin Enterprises Inc. v. LeeSeventh Circuit· 1986-10-09· cited 92×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.