Manax v. McNamara
District Court, W.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WALTER S. SMITH, JR., District Judge.
On this date came on to be considered the motion of each Defendant to dismiss this cause. The motions are made pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, having considered said motions, finds that they are meritorious and should be granted.
I
Plaintiffs, Dr. William G. Manax and Manax Medical and Surgical Clinic, a Texas Partnership d/b/a The Oak Street Medical Clinic, invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., and assert pendent…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Griffin v. BreckenridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Manax v. McNamaraCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- MANAX v. McNAMARACourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- Hall American Center Associates Ltd. Partnership v. DickDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1989
- Mackin v. AubergerDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2014
- In Re American Express Co. Shareholder LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.