Epstein Secrets

ral Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997) 4. Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO

224 (3d Cir. 2007). 8. Petrol LTD v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). DIRECT INJURIES MUST BE SUSTAINED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE RICO 1. O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc. 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d (DCA 1992). 2. Palmus Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 881 So.2d 565 (Fl

ral Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997) 4. Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO

224 (3d Cir. 2007). 8. Petrol LTD v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). DIRECT INJURIES MUST BE SUSTAINED TO PROPERLY ALLEGE RICO 1. O'Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc. 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (Fla. 3d (DCA 1992). 2. Palmus Y Bambu, S.A. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, 881 So.2d 565 (Fl

at the racketeering activity caused him to suffer an injary. . ., a claim stemming from personal injury is not cognizable under Rico." Id; see also Pilkington v. United Airlines. 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir. 1997); Federal Procedure, 5B Fed. Proc., L. Ed., §10:160, Sta a, Private Civil Actions Under ER

lorida looks to Federal authority regarding the interpretation and application of its Acts, citing 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq. and Fla. Stat. 772.104); O'Malley v, St,„ Thomas Univ.. Inc., 599 So.2d 999, 1000 (FM. 3d DCA 1992)flince Florida Rico is patterned after Federal RICO. .. .[f]ederal decisions should