Legal Opinion
Pincay v. Andrews
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 6, 2001No. Nos. 98-55217, 98-55288, 98-55449PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute of limitations begins to run, as a matter of law, upon receipt of written disclosure of the alleged injury.
I
Lafitt Pincay and Christopher McCar-ron are professional horse racing jockeys who have been inducted into the sport’s Hall of Fame. Vincent Andrews (“Vincent”), Robert Andrews (“Robert”), and their company, Vincent Andrews Management Corporation (“VAMC”) (collectively “Andrews”), are investment advisors whom both Pincay and McCarron retained between 1969 and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Rotella v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Klehr v. A. O. Smith Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Grimmett v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Laffit Pincay, Jr. Christopher J. McCarron v. Vincent S. Andrews Robert Andrews Vincent Andrews Management Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Clyde Spencer v. Sharon KrauseCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Jay E. Hayden Foundation v. First Neighbor Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
- Media Rights Technologies, Inc v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Doug Greisen v. Jon HankenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.