Citation network
Rotella Vs. Wood
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 2000
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 549 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Rotella V. WoodSearch
-
summary judgment on the ground that the 4-year limitations period for civil RICO claims, see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
the Court has been emphatic that the justification for such a rule does not extend beyond the injury. United States v. KubrickSearch
-
Mark Rotella, was admitted to the Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion with a diagnosis of major depression. Rotella v. PedersonSearch
-
on the ground that the period for bringing the civil action had expired before Rotella sued. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
accrual rule starting the clock when a plaintiff knew or should have known of his injury. See, e. g., Grimmett v. BrownSearch
-
McCool v. StrataSearch
-
Rodriguez v. BancoSearch
-
Bankers Trust Co. v. RhoadesSearch
-
Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. BethlehemSearch
-
when the claimant discovers, or should discover, both an injury and a pattern of RICO activity. See, e. g., Caproni v. PrudentialSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Granite Falls Bank v. HenriksonSearch
-
Bath v. BushkinSearch
-
Bivens Gardens Office 554 Building, Inc. v. BarnettSearch
-
rule, see Keystone Ins. Co. v. HoughtonSearch
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. HazeltineSearch
-
accrual rule when a statute is silent on the issue, as civil RICO is here. Klehr, supra, at 191 (citing Connors v. HallmarkSearch
-
H. J. Inc. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
record of congressional reliance on the Clayton Act when RICO was under consideration, see Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. ImrexSearch
-
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. ImrexSearch
-
predicate act, the limitations period might otherwise expire before the pattern is created. E. g., Granite Falls Bank v. HenriksonSearch
-
the cardinal principle that a limitations period does not begin to run until the cause of action is complete. Rawlings v. RaySearch
-
see also United States v. LindsaySearch
-
Clark v. IowaSearch
-
pleadings based on evidence reasonably anticipated after further investigation or discovery. See, e. g., Corley v. RosewoodSearch
-
to defeat a claim, Urie v. ThompsonSearch
-
statutes of limitations are generally subject to equitable principles of tolling, see Holm- 561 berg v. ArmbrechtSearch
-
Syllabus Rotella V. WoodSearch
-
Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
Rotella v. PedersonSearch
-
Grimmett v. BrownSearch
-
Caproni v. PrudentialSearch
-
Building, Inc. v. BarnettSearch
-
Keystone Ins. Co. v. HoughtonSearch
-
Connors v. HallmarkSearch
-
Corley v. RosewoodSearch
-
Urie v. ThompsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial