Epstein Secrets

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

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00722697 M v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224

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 (Ha. 3d DCA 1992)("Since Florida Rico is patterned after Federal RICO. . . .[f]ederal decisions sho

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729113 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

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 (Ha. 3d DCA 1992)("Since Florida Rico is patterned after Federal RICO. . . .[f]ederal decisions sho

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729108 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

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

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00614427 v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224 (3d

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

, citing Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987)(congress intended RICO to exclude personnel injuries). 14. at 348. In Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001), the court held that claims for money damages relating to nursing home patients' deaths following massi