Schlaifer Nance & Company v. The Estate of Andy Warhol, Frederick Hughes, Edward W. Hayes, Esq., and Vincent Fremont

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that various predicate acts' were related because they shared the common goal of maximizing the wealth of the enterprise
• aiding and abetting fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence
• stating the determination of whether one’s reliance was “reasonable” is a “fact-intensive” inquiry
• “Claims for violations of RICO generally need only meet the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a
• “[C]ourts must take care to ensure that the plaintiff is not artificially fragmenting a singular act into multiple acts simply to invoke RICO.”
• “Q. For any use. By anybody. A. Yes. Q. Whether it’s your home video or a video promoting Monster products. A. Yes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).