Legal Opinion
Daddona v. Gaudio
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided September 8, 2000No. 399CV1251(JBA)PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
ARTERTON, District Judge.
Overview:
In this case, pro se plaintiff Paul R-. Daddona alleges that the defendants, Phillip Swaim, Maxine Gaudio, Geoffrey Brandner, Judge Alvin W. Thompson and the United States 1 engaged in twenty-two “acts of racketeering” in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b) — (d), and that plaintiff suffered damages, including lost interest and legal fees, as a “direct and proximate result.” See Amended Complaint, at ¶¶ 8, 9 [Doc. # 47], Daddona alleges that Gaudio, Swaim and Brandner violated 18…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Mireles v. WacoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Snow Ingredients, Incorporated v. SnoWizardCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. James Scott PendergraftCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Curtis & Associates, P.C. v. Law Offices of BushmanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- Quick v. Educap, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.