Thomas, R., Pets. v. Co. of Bucks TCB

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that proximate causation under RICO was absent where the alleged harm was “entirely distinct” from the alleged RICO violation
• holding that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue for a civil RICO violation unless its injury was proximately caused by the alleged violation
• holding that plaintiffs asserting a civil RICO claim must show that the predicate acts were both the “but for” and proximate cause of their injuries
• holding that “a plaintiff may sue under § 1964(c) only if the alleged RICO violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury.”
• holding that plaintiff’s claim failed to “satisfy the requirement of proximate causation” “[n]otwithstanding the lack of any appreciable risk of duplicative recoveries”
• holding that plaintiffs claim failed to “satisfy the requirement of proximate causation” “[njotwithstanding the lack of any appreciable risk of duplica-tive recoveries”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).