Samuel M. Opper v. Hancock Sec. Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Samuel M. Opper v. Hancock Sec. Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“. . . or the purposes that concern us here, it made no difference whether defendant operated 'as principal' or 'as broker' . . . .”
56 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Taylor v. SMITH, BARNEY & CO., INCORPORATED (utd, 1973-04-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Taylor v. SMITH, BARNEY & CO., INCORPORATED
D. Utah · 1973 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
. . . or the purposes that concern us here, it made no difference whether defendant operated 'as principal' or 'as broker' . . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodman v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
Although plaintiff argues that there is an implied cause of action under § 15(a)(1), the sole authority plaintiff cites for this proposition is Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157, 158 (2d Cir.1966).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCowan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157, 158 (2d Cir.1966) (actionable under § 10(b) of *745 1934 Act) 4 ; see Barnett v. United States, 319 F.2d 340, 344 (8th Cir.1963) (actionable under former 15 U.S.C. §§ 78o & 78o-3); 5B Jacobs, Litigation & Practice under Rule 10b-5, § 212.04 at 9-167 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" Landegger v. Cohen
D. Colo. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
As Plaintiff points out that prior to 1975 a private cause of action had been recognized by some courts under Section 15: see Landry v. Hemphill, Noyes & Co., 473 F.2d 365 , 368 n. 1 (1st Cir.1973), Davis v. Avco Corp., 371 F.Supp. 782, 789 (N.D.Ohio 1974), and Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157, 158 (2nd Cir.1966). 14 Because of these cases, Plaintiff contends that the contemporary legal context allows this Court to more readily infer Congressional intent supporting a private cause of action since Congress’s failure to expressly eliminate the private cause of action in the amen…
discussed Cited "see" Kirkland v. EF Hutton and Co., Inc.
E.D. Mich. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1966); Resnick v. Touche Ross & Co., 470 F.Supp. 1020 (S.D. *440 N.Y.1979); Davis v. Avco Corp., 371 F.Supp. 782 (N.D.Ohio 1974); Franklin National Bank v. L.B.
discussed Cited "see" Hardy v. Sanson
N.D. Ga. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
While it is true that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is unnecessary to prove a “consummated, or closed, purchase or sale as condition to the institution of [a suit under Section 10(b)]”, Commerce Reporting Co. v. Puretec, Inc., 290 F.Supp. 715, 718 (S.D.N.Y.1968); see Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1966), aff’g, 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), the requirement of “purchase” remains.
cited Cited "see" Silverman v. Bear, Stearns & Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Opper v. Hancock Securities Corporation, 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d. 367 F.2d 157 (2nd Cir. 1966).
cited Cited "see" Abram Chasins v. Smith, Barney & Co., Inc.
2d Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 250 F.Supp. 668, 676 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff’d 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1966).
discussed Cited "see" Crane Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.
2d Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1967), aff’g 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966); Commerce Reporting Co. v. Puretec, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 715 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Stockwell v. Reynolds & Co., 252 F.Supp. 215 (S.D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gambella v. Guardian Investor Services Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Rich v. Touche Ross & Co., 415 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Commerce Reporting Co. v. Pun-tee, Inc., 290 F.Supp. 715 (S.D.N.Y.1968); See also Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.) (holding that a broker who failed to execute a client’s sell order while trading the same stock at the same time for his own account violated his duties under the 1934 Act), aff'd, 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1966) (per cu- *300 riam). 2 Those courts that have allowed suits to proceed have done so only in those narrow cases “where the plaintiffs signify to the defendant their present intention…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ca3 1998
3rd Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 250 F.Supp. 668, 676 (S.D.N.Y.) ("[T]he duties of a securities broker are, if anything, more stringent than those imposed by general agency law."), aff'd, 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Newton v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
3rd Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Opper v. Hancock Securities Corp., 250 F.Supp. 668, 676 (S.D.N.Y.) ("[T]he duties of a securities broker are, if anything, more stringent than those imposed by general agency law."), aff'd, 367 F.2d 157 (2d Cir.1966).
Samuel M. OPPER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HANCOCK SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
30434_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 5, 1966.
367 F.2d 157
Edward Labaton, New York City (Kramer, Bandler & Labaton, Sidney Kramer, and Edward Labaton, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee., Lewis Perkiss, New York City (Kimmelman & Perkiss, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Smith, Hays, Feinberg.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 86%
Citer courts: D. Utah (1)
PER CURIAM:

In action by Connecticut customer against New York broker-dealer for damages for failure to carry out contract for sale of stock, based on New York law and the Securities Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j, 78o), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, Judge, entered judgment for plaintiff. 250 F.Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1966). We find no error and in open court we have affirmed the judgment.

The principal attacks on appeal are on the finding of a contract for a sale at market. The court credited the testimony of plaintiff, which amply supports the finding. Credibility is for determination by the trier. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Havana Madrid Restaurant Corp., 175 F. 2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1949). Failure to carry out the order while disposing of its own similar stock was not only actionable under the contract but also a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. See Barnett v. United States, 319 F.2d 340, 344, 345 (8th Cir. 1963). As such, it was actionable in a private suit. Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1951). The proof of sales of its own stock by defendant constituted a proper criterion for measuring damages, and recovery was rightly allowed for the damages proved, although higher in amount than the original ad damnum.

The claim of bias on the part of the trial judge is so lacking in substance as not to require comment. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). The judgment is affirmed.