1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 788 F.Supp.
  5. 788 F.Supp. 1543 (1992)
 

SCHRAG v. DINGES

Civ. A. No. 88-1373-T.

788 F.Supp. 1543 (1992)

Galen SCHRAG, Merlin Kaufman, Michael Maloney, Dale McCurry, A.J. McCurry, Robert McCurry, Odel McCurry, Cecil McCurry, James Meier, William G. Schwartz, and John R. Nickelson, individually, and in his capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Neola Nickelson, Plaintiffs, v. Ted DINGES Jr., Gary Dinges, Mark Youngers, Charles Brooks, Jay Ewing, Fred Shaffer, Robert "Bob" Simpson, Bonaventure A. Kreutzer, Jr., Denis Dieker, Paganica, Inc., Dinges International, Inc., and Ag-Marketing Commodities, Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

January 7, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael E. Baker, Najim & Baker, Wichita, Kan., James C. Dodd, Craig Dodd & Associates, Enid, Okl., for plaintiffs.

Thomas D. Kitch, David G. Seely, Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Mark (NMI) Youngers.

Dan W. Forker, Jr., Reynolds, Peirce, Forker, Suter & Rose, Hutchinson, Kan., for defendant Charles (NMI) Brooks.

J. Stanley Hill, Branine, Chalfant & Hill, Hutchinson, Kan., Martin W. Bauer, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Swartz, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Jay (NMI) Ewing.

David J. Morgan, Robert J. Roth, Hershberger, Patterson, Jones & Roth, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Fred (NMI) Shaffer.

Charles (NMI) Livingston, pro se.

Thomas L. Theis, Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, Topeka, Kan., William L. Mitchell, Mitchell & Henry, Hutchinson, Kan., for defendant Robert (NMI) Simpson.

Albert L. Kamas, Render, Kamas & Hammond, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Bonaventure A. Kreutzer, Jr.

Albert L. Kamas, Render, Kamas & Hammond, Joseph H. Cassell, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Denis (NMI) Dieker.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THEIS, District Judge.

This is an action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and common law fraud. Defendants Dieker, Kreutzer and Youngers bring before this court motions to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claim, the particularity of the pleading, the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, and the constitutionality of the RICO statute.

The plaintiffs allege four counts...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases