Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. John A. Hickey, & Mamie Tang, Cont'l Capital Fin. Grp., Inc. Cont'l Capital Income Fund II Jm Reg'l, Inc. Cont'l Capital Props. I, Inc. Cont'l Capital Sec. Grp., Inc. Cont'l Capital Investments, Inc. Cont'l Capital Employees, Inc. Cont'l Capital Secured Principal With Income Fund I Cont'l Capital Private Equity Fund I D.E. Frey & Co., Inc., Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. John A. Hickey, & John Hickey Brokerage, Third Party-Appellant, 335 F.3d 834 (3rd Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. John A. Hickey, & Mamie Tang, Cont'l Capital Fin. Grp., Inc. Cont'l Capital Income Fund II Jm Reg'l, Inc. Cont'l Capital Props. I, Inc. Cont'l Capital Sec. Grp., Inc. Cont'l Capital Investments, Inc. Cont'l Capital Employees, Inc. Cont'l Capital Secured Principal With Income Fund I Cont'l Capital Private Equity Fund I D.E. Frey & Co., Inc., Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. John A. Hickey, & John Hickey Brokerage, Third Party-Appellant, 335 F.3d 834 (3rd Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“federal courts have inherent equitable authority to issue a variety of 'ancillary relief' measures in actions brought by the sec to enforce the federal securities laws”
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bluepoint Investment Counsel, LLC (wiwd, 2025-09-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bluepoint Investment Counsel, LLC
W.D. Wis. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
federal courts have inherent equitable authority to issue a variety of 'ancillary relief' measures in actions brought by the sec to enforce the federal securities laws
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gonzales
10th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123 , 1127 (9th Cir.) (dismissing appeal where court imposed no sanction and party appealed before end of period during which he could purge contempt, because “an adjudication of civil contempt is not appealable until sanctions have been imposed” (quotation omitted)), amended on other grounds, 335 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2003); U.S. Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. (In re U.S. Abatement Corp.), 39 F.3d 563 , 567 (5th Cir. 1994) (“It is well-settled that a civil contempt order is not ‘final’ for purposes of appeal unless two actions o…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gonzales
10th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123 , 1127 (9th Cir.) (dismissing appeal where court imposed no sanction and party appealed before end of period during which he could purge contempt, because “an adjudication of civil contempt is not appealable until sanctions have been imposed” (quotation omitted)), amended on other grounds, 335 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.2003); U.S. Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. (In re U.S. Abatement Corp.), 39 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir.1994) (“It is well-settled that a civil contempt order is not ‘final’ for purposes of appeal unless two actions occu…
discussed Cited "see" Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Papanicolaou
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123 , 1128 (9th Cir.), amended by 335 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.2003) (we review a district court’s contempt order for abuse of discretion); In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir.2003) (we review the underlying findings of fact for clear error).
discussed Cited "see" Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Constantino Papanicolaou, D/B/A Roxy's Famous Deli Restaurant, Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Constantino Papanicolaou, D/B/A Rmt Roxy's Famous Deli Restaurant, Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Constantino Papanicolaou, D/B/A Rmt Roxy's Famous Deli Restaurant, Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc. v. Constantino Papanicolaou, D/B/A Roxy's Famous Deli Restaurant
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123 , 1128 (9th Cir.), amended by 335 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.2003) (we review a district court's contempt order for abuse of discretion); In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir.2003) (we review the underlying findings of fact for clear error).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Securities and Exchange Commission
v.
John A. Hickey, and Mamie Tang, Continental Capital Financial Group, Inc. Continental Capital Income Fund II Jm Regional, Inc. Continental Capital Properties I, Inc. Continental Capital Securities Group, Inc. Continental Capital Investments, Inc. Continental Capital Employees, Inc. Continental Capital Secured Principal With Income Fund I Continental Capital Private Equity Fund I D.E. Frey & Company, Inc., Securities and Exchange Commission v. John A. Hickey, and John Hickey Brokerage, Third Party-Appellant
01-17027.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jul 7, 2003.
335 F.3d 834
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: C.D. California (1) · W.D. Wisconsin (1)

335 F.3d 834

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John A. HICKEY, Defendant-Appellant, and
Mamie Tang, Continental Capital Financial Group, Inc.; Continental Capital Income Fund II; JM Regional, Inc.; Continental Capital Properties I, Inc.; Continental Capital Securities Group, Inc.; Continental Capital Investments, Inc.; Continental Capital Employees, Inc.; Continental Capital Secured Principal With Income Fund I; Continental Capital Private Equity Fund I; D.E. Frey & Company, Inc., Defendants.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John A. Hickey, Defendant, and
John Hickey Brokerage, Third Party-Appellant.

No. 01-17027.

No. 01-17214.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2002.

Filed March 7, 2003.

Amended July 7, 2003.

David J. Cohen, Cohen & Paik, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellant John A. Hickey.

Curtis F. Dowling, Dillingham & Murphy LLP, San Francisco, California, for third-party appellant John Hickey Brokerage Co.

Michael A. Conley and Rada Potts, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee Securities and Exchange Commission.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-03336-WHA.

Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The slip opinion filed March 7, 2003, is hereby amended as follows:

2

At page 3512, line 7, the text "admitted violating securities laws and" shall be deleted. At page 3513, line 24, the word "no" shall be deleted and replaced by "insufficient." At page 3513, lines 25-27, the following text shall be deleted: "Nonetheless, the district court allowed Hickey's counsel to designate portions of the deposition of Dorothy Hickey for consideration by the court."

3

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The panel has also voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

4

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case.