Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity
From ScotusWiki
Authorship: SCOTUSblog.
Contents |
[edit] Briefs and Documents
Docket: 07-210
Issue: Whether plaintiffs who did not rely on but were nonetheless harmed by false statements made to third parties can establish proximate cause in a civil RICO action.
Merits briefs
- Brief for Petitioner John Bridge, et al.
- Brief for Respondent Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Company, et al.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner John Bridge, et al.
Amicus briefs
- Brief for the McKesson Corporation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the International Association of Insurance Receivers in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the States of Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondent
Certiorari filings
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of McKesson Corporation (in support of the petitioner)
[edit] Pre-Argument Articles
The grant was limited to the question of whether reliance is a required element of a civil racketerring (RICO) claim based on mail fraud, and, if so, whether the plaintiff must show that he or she directly relied on the misrepresentation. The Court twice before had agreed to decide the reliance question, but was unable to reach the issue in those cases.
[edit] Opinion Analysis
[edit] Links and further information
[[Category:]]
