Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Jones, 85 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1936). · Go Syfert
Search
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Jones, 85 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1936). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chandler v. Siegleman (ca11, 1999-07-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1937 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1937 1981 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chandler v. Siegleman (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) (1994); SEC v. Jones, 85 F.2d 17, 17 (2d Cir.1936) (noting that, because of the Securities Act, the SEC need not allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law when seeking injunctive relief).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chandler v. Siegleman
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
See 15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) (1994); SEC v. Jones, 85 F.2d 17, 17 (2d Cir. 1936) (noting that, because of the Securities Act, the SEC need not allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law when seeking injunctive relief).
discussed Cited "see" Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
N.D. Ill. · 1980 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, SEC v. Jones, 15 F.Supp. 321, 322 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d on other grounds, 85 F.2d 17 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 299 U.S. 581 , 57 S.Ct. 46 , 81 L.Ed. 428 (1936) (“It is fantastic to say that because this suit was preceded by an investigation termed unlawful, the suit must be thrown out of court”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fleming v. Alderman
D. Conn. · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Jones, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 17 ; United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 117 , 52 S.Ct. 460 , 76 L.Ed. 999 ; and Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.Ed. 550 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Securities and Exchange Commission
v.
Jones
479.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 13, 1936.
85 F.2d 17
H. I. Fischbach, of New York City, Harry O. Glasser, of Enid, Okl., and J. N. Saye, of Longview, Tex., for appellant., John J. Burns, of Washington, D. C. (Francis Currie, Charles R. Kaufman, Francis S. Walker, all of Washington, D. C., and John L. Flynn, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for respondent and applicant-appellee.
Manton, Hand, Swan.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from denied appellant’s motion to vacate an injunction pendente lite, entered upon his consent; also to dismiss the bill of complaint, and to suppress evidence secured from appellant and to direct the appellee to return copies thereof now in its possession.

In view of the consent to the injunction pendente lite, the contention now raised, that it resulted from an illegal investigation, becomes immaterial.. The consent to the entry of the injunction waived any error of decision that might have been made. Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311, 48 S.Ct. 311, 72 L.Ed. 587. Moreover, appellant stipulated that his books could be examined. The attack made upon the bill of complaint because it failed to allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law becomes immaterial, since the injunctive relief is provided for by the statute. Section 20 (b), Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77t (b).

We have heretofore held that the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77a et seq.) is constitutional. Securities and Exchange Comm. v. Jones (C.C.A.) 79 F.(2d) 617. In a review of that case, the Supreme Court reversed upon other grounds. 298 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 654, 80 L.Ed. 1015.

The denial of that part of the order asking the suppression of the evidence and return of papers we will not now consider, for that part of the relief refused is not appealable. Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275; In re Bob, 76 F.(2d) 131 (C.C.A.2).

Order affirmed.