Legal Opinion
In re: Landlocked v.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided December 29, 2000No. 00-1465PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on petitioners’ petition for a writ of mandamus. The request for mandamus arises from a Colorado district court case in which the plaintiffs allege that Viktor Koz-eny and corporations either owned or controlled by him engaged in an extensive pattern of fraudulent conduct while entering into investment and custodian contracts that resulted in plaintiffs’ loss of more than $140 million. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Kozeny, 115 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Colo.2000) [hereinafter Kozeny II].
I. Facts and prior proceedings
The operative contracts…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cigna Healthcare of St. Louis, Inc. v. Timothy N. KaiserCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- United States v. BoldenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Crystal Clear Communications, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- KREDITVEREIN DER BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT FUR NIEDERÖSTERREICH UND BERGENLAND BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT AG v. CHRISTA NEJEZCHLEBACourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- Kell v. BenzonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.