Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 82 F.3d 426 (10th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 82 F.3d 426 (10th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2025 · …imposition of partial filing fees is an appropriate exercise of authority ⚠ not in text
45 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christopher Allen Barela v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (nmd, 2025-12-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Christopher Allen Barela v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
D.N.M. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
imposition of partial filing fees is an appropriate exercise of authority
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jones v. Social Security Administration
D.N.M. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
imposition of partial filing fees is an appropriate exercise of authority
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1996 · confidence medium
The Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court, stating the court “should address Plant’s effect on this case, if any.” Rosenthal v. Dean Witter, 82 F.3d 426 (TABLE), 1996 WL 165297, *4 (10th Cir. April 9,1996).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Carpenter
Bankr. D. Vt. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Priddy v. Eley (In re Rossmiller), 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 175369 at *2 (10th Cir.1996) (unpublished decision) (stating that the gross proceeds from an estate auction constituted property of the estate, and noting that “several bankruptcy courts have determined that a fee paid by a purchaser of estate assets to a broker or auctioneer is a commission paid from the estate’s proceeds”) (listing cases).
discussed Cited "see" Cannon v. Cannon
S.D. Fla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Shafner, 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 98809, at *2 (10th Cir.1996) (“[U]nder Colorado law, the judgments of appellees never became liens upon the debtors’ homestead .... [R]esort to [§ ] 522(f) to avoid the judgment liens at issue is unnecessary because Colorado law prevented their attachment; therefore, the debtors’ right to their homestead exemption is not jeopardized ....
discussed Cited "see" Allen v. Apfel
D. Kan. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Merriman v. Chater, 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 173152, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr.12, 1996) (Table) (citing Murphy v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 383, 386-87 (8th Cir.1992) “(failure to seek low-cost medical treatment and lack of evidence claimant had been denied medical care because of financial condition supports determination that claimant’s financial hardship was not severe enough to justify failure to seek medical treatment)”).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. Department of Correc
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 5 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Marshall v. Champion, 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 187535 , at **1 (10th Cir. April 18, 1996) (order and judgment)).
cited Cited "see" Christopher Johnson v. Department of Corrections Carol Johnston, Department of Corrections John Jubic, Aac Hearing Officer
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 5 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Marshall v. Champion, 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 187535 , at * * 1 (10th Cir. April 18, 1996) (order and judgment)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Tapia
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Shafner v. Aurora National Bank South (In re Shafner) , 82 F.3d 426 (10th Cir. 1996) (construing Colorado law, the court stated that "[a]s in Sanders , resort to 522(f) to avoid the judgment liens at issue is unnecessary because Colorado law prevented their attachment"); see also In re Jordana , 232 B.R. 469 , 474 (10th Cir. BAP 2003) (under prior version of Oklahoma law, judgment lien did not attach to homestead, so § 522(f) is superfluous and without application).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Martinez
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2012 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare In re Shafner, 165 B.R. 660, 662 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1994), aff'd on other grounds, 82 F.3d 426 (10th Cir.1996) (Table) (finding that when judicial liens are "sandwiched” between consensual liens and statutory liens, the court must preserve the state law order of priority, without regard to whether the liens are avoidable) with In re Trahan, 337 B.R. 448, 451 (Bankr.D.Conn.2006) (applying lien avoidance formula literally to include non-avoidable statutory liens, even though it may upset state law priority).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Saal v. Helping People Succeed, Inc. (In Re Saal)
Bankr.D. Colo. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See In re Dickinson, 185 B.R. 840, 841 (Bankr.D.Colo.1995); see also, Shafner v. Aurora National Bank South (In re Shafner), 82 F.3d 426 , 1996 WL 98809 at *2 (10th Cir.1996)(unpublished opinion) and In re Cisneros, 257 B.R. 332, 336 (Bankr.N.M.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howard Rosenthal, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v.
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., Castle Pines Land Company, Frank B. Walker, Jack A. Vickers, Iii, Helen McMaster Coulson, William B. Graham, and Larry Reichert
93-1425.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Apr 9, 1996.
82 F.3d 426
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #46,425 of 633,719
Citer courts: D. New Mexico (2)

82 F.3d 426

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Howard ROSENTHAL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Castle Pines Land Company, Frank
B. Walker, Jack A. Vickers, III, Helen Mcmaster
Coulson, William B. Graham, and Larry
Reichert, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1425.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 9, 1996.

Before LOGAN and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,[**] District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P.

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This securities fraud case has a long and complex procedural history. For purposes of this appeal, it is enough to say that in its present incarnation, plaintiff Howard Rosenthal[2] claims that he purchased bonds that defendants fraudulently marketed in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. A Colorado state court dismissed similar claims plaintiff asserted against defendants under the Colorado Securities Act for failing to state claims on which relief could be granted. Because of the similarities between the state and federal statutes, the district court concluded that the state court's ruling should be given collateral estoppel effect precluding litigation of the section 10(b) claim and dismissed the case. In doing so, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the standards for showing reliance were different under Colorado and federal law. Expanding the state trial court's analysis on the issue of reliance somewhat, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's state law claims. Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 883 P.2d 522, 525-29 (Colo.Ct.App.1994). When the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, we abated this appeal.

The Colorado Supreme Court has now issued its opinion reversing the court of appeals on the reliance issue. Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095 (Colo.1995). The court held that plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim under the Colorado Securities Act, and ordered the case remanded to the state trial court for further proceedings. Id. at 1102, 1106. As defendants now concede, there is no longer a state court judgment on which the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied. We therefore must reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

We note that one of the factors complicating the procedural history of this case was what was the applicable statute of limitations period. The district court earlier dismissed this case (for the second time) on the basis that the statute passed to extend the limitations period for cases such as this one, 15 U.S.C. 78aa-1, was unconstitutional. We reversed that decision. Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., No. 92-1215 (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 1992)(Order and Judgment), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2339 (1993). However, the Supreme Court recently held that at least part of Section 78aa-1 was unconstitutional. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms, Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1447 (1995). The district court should address Plaut 's effect on this case, if any.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

Honorable David L. Russell, District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3

2

Plaintiff filed this case as a class action and seeks to represent himself and other similarly situated bond purchases. Because the case never reached the class certification stage, Rosenthal is the only plaintiff