Case Citator › Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp.

Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
742 F.2d 786
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
41 of 41
Citing cases (total)
41
Treatment dates
2007–2009
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. has been overruled in part on its bare allegation rule for pleading a RICO enterprise. All 41 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly requires a plausible claim under Rule 8; the Third Circuit later described Seville as “abrogated in part on other grounds by” Twombly in Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, 965 F.3d 229, 242 (3d Cir. 2020). A bankruptcy court applied that change to Seville's enterprise pleading rule. Later opinions continue to cite Seville's separate Rule 9(b) fraud particularity rule.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

41 later cases cite Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp.; 41 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court's plausibility requirement displaced Seville's rule that merely identifying an alleged RICO enterprise suffices at the pleading stage.

    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Here, in contrast, we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The bankruptcy court held that Seville's RICO enterprise pleading rule must satisfy Twombly's later plausibility standard.

    Krasny v. Bagga (In re Jamuna Real Estate, LLC) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · filed

    Seville’s holding as to pleading a RICO enterprise is premised on a liberal application of Rule 8. But the controlling interpretation of that rule for the Seville court was Gibson, supra. Twombly is now the final word on what Rule 8 requires and what is required is plausibility; that is a step up from speculation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Seville Industrial Machinery Corp. v. Southmost Machinery Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace