◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 33 spirators; “{clireumstantial evidence may provide ade- quate proof of conspiracy.” Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Greenberg, 447 F.2d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1971). See also United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735, 741-42 (7th Cir. 1969). Absent the testimony of a coconspirator, it is unlikely that direct evidence of a conspiratorial agree- ment will exist. Thus, the question whether an agree- ment exists should not be taken from the jury in a civil conspiracy case so long as there is a possibility that the jury can “infer from the circumstances [that the alleged conspirators] had a ‘meeting of the minds’ and thus. reached an understanding” to achieve the conspiracy’s oa Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 A plaintiff seeking redress need not prove that each participant in a conspiracy knew the “exact limits of the illegal plan or the identity of all participants therein.” - Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., supra, 447 F.2d at 875. An ex- press agreement among all the conspirators is not a necessary element of a civil conspiracy. The participants in the conspiracy must share the general conspiratorial objective, but they need not know all the details of the plan designed to achieve the objective or possess the same motives for desiring the intended conspiratorial - result. To demonstrate the existence of a conspiratorial agreement, it simply must be shown that there was “a single plan, the essential nature and general scope of which [was] known to each person who is to be held responsible for its consequences.” Jd. Keeping these standards in mind, when we examine the evidence presented by both sides in this case in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that the district court erred when it ruled that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of conspiracy. Our analysis of the plaintiffs’ case leads us to conclude that the plaintiffs did offer sufficient evidence to warrant a jury determination of whether a conspiracy existed. The fact that “all of the evidence . . . does not point in one direction and different inferences might reasonably be drawn from it” does not.justify judicial intrusion into the jury’s role in determining whether a civil conspiracy existed. Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon