Whitmore's Automotive Services, Inc. v. Lake County

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts have found closed periods of several months to several years not substantial enough to satisfy continuity
• noting that court of appeals “has not hesitated to find that closed periods of several months or several years did not qualify as ‘substantial’ enough to satisfy continuity”
• affirming summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ RICO claim because of a lack of continuity, even though the defendants’ predicate activity lasted for approximately two years
• explaining that, in this analysis, “[n]o one factor is dispositive”
• stating “the victims of the defendants’ activities were confined to a small group — the dozen or so approved towers from 1997 to 1999 — which does not help [plaintifQ’s case for continuity.”
• under section 1988, prevailing defendant entitled to fees only when plaintiff’s suit was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).