green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.3 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 4 distinct cases ·
"Rochez II "
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re Rent-Way Securities Litigation
(2×)
secondary liability cannot be found under section 20(a) unless it can be shown that the defendant was a culpable participant in the fraud.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Riggs v. Schappell
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
rochez ii
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kersh v. General Council of the Assemblies of God
This circuit has not clearly articulated a standard for determining the existence of power or influence. 2 However, Christoffel did state with approval the conclusion of the Second and Third Circuits that “the term ‘controlling persons’ requires proof ... of a relationship between the controlling and controlled persons which gives the former direct or indirect influence over the policy and decision-making process of the latter.” 3 Id. at 668 (citing Gordon v. Burr, 506 F.2d 1080, 1085 (2d Cir.1974); Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1299 (2d Cir.1973) (en banc); Rochez Brothers, In…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kersh v. General Council of Assemblies of God
This circuit has not clearly articulated a standard for determining the existence of power or influence. 2 7 However, Christoffel did state with approval the conclusion of the Second and Third Circuits that "the term 'controlling persons' requires proof ... of a relationship between the controlling and controlled persons which gives the former direct or indirect influence over the policy and decision-making process of the latter." 3 Id. at 668 (citing Gordon v. Burr, 506 F.2d 1080, 1085 (2d Cir. 1974); Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1299 (2d Cir.1973) (en banc); Rochez Brothers, Inc. v.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SHARP, Stanley L. v. COOPERS & LYBRAND, Appellant
It relied on a “broker-dealer” exception alluded to in Rochez II, id. at 886, reasoning that an accounting firm issuing a tax opinion letter to be used in selling securities is laden with the same public trust as a broker-dealer. 457 F.Supp. at 891 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Mishkin Ex Rel. Liquidation of the Business of Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. v. Ensminger (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.)
(2×)
See Dupuy, 551 F.2d at 1022, Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 491 F.2d 402, 410 (3d Cir.1973), aff'd after remand, 527 F.2d 880 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chester Holdings, Ltd.
(2×)
See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 889-891 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976); In re Midlantic Corp. Shareholder Litig., 758 F.Supp. 226, 236 (D.N.J.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation
(2×)
See Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 895 (3d Cir.1975) ("Although the law does not command mathematical preciseness from the evidence in finding damages, sufficient facts must be introduced so that a court can arrive at an intelligent estimate without speculation or conjecture.”), cer t. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976). 47 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackson and Coker, Inc. v. Lynam
(2×)
See Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining And Marketing, Inc.
(3×)
See Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir.1975) (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Lucey, 403 F.2d 135, 139 (5th Cir.1968)), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
examined
Cited "see"
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.
(3×)
See Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir.1975) (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Lucey, 403 F.2d 135, 139 (5th Cir.1968)), ce rt. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Mirza v. MACCABEES LIFE AND ANNUITY CO.
See, generally, Ann Arbor Trust Co v North American Co for Life & Health Ins, 527 F2d 526, 527 (CA 6, 1975), cert den 425 US 993 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
(2×)
See 649 F.2d at 189 . 66 Given all these factors, the district court did not err, having concluded that Blinder, Robinson's nondisclosures and half-truths were material, in excusing plaintiffs from their burden of proving reliance on those nondisclosures and half-truths. 23 Appellants were entitled to try to rebut the presumption that the plaintiffs relied, see, e.g., Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 491 F.2d 402, 410 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976), but they did not attempt to do so.
discussed
Cited "see"
American General Insurance v. Equitable General Corp.
(2×)
See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 884 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holmes v. Bateson
(2×)
Materiality and Reliance 65 The test for determining the "materiality" of the nondisclosure is " whether 'a reasonable man would attach importance (to the fact not disclosed) in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.' " Rogen v. Illikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260, 266 (1st Cir. 1966), quoting Restatement, Torts § 538(2)(a); See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 491 F.2d 402, 408 (3d Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976); List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 340 F.2d 457 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 382 U.S. 811 , 86 S.Ct. 23 , 15 L.Ed.2d 60 (1965…
discussed
Cited "see"
Holmes v. Bateson
(2×)
Materiality and Reliance m The test for determining the “materiality” of the nondisclosure is “whether ‘a reasonable man would attach importance [to the fact not disclosed] in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.’ ” Rogen v. Illikon Corp., 361 F.2d 260, 266 (1st Cir. 1966), quoting Restatement, Torts § 538(2)(a); see Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 491 F.2d 402, 408 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976); List v. Fashion Park, Inc., 340 F.2d 457 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 811 , 86 S.Ct. 23 , 15 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see"
ca1 1978
(2×)
See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
First National Bank of Chicago v. Jefferson Mortgage Co.
(2×)
See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891, 894 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holmes v. Bateson
(2×)
See Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 884 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976); SEC v. Lum’s Inc., 365 F.Supp. 1046, 1061 (S.D.N.Y.1973).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mechensky v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
See also Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 891 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 (1976).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
S & H Computer Systems, Inc. v. SAS Institute, Inc.
See, e.g., Ann Arbor Trust Co. v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, 527 F.2d 526, 527 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2206 , 48 L.Ed.2d 818 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Savino v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.
(2×)
See also Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F.2d 880, 890 (3d Cir. 1975), cert, denied, 425 U.S. 993 , 96 S.Ct. 2205 , 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976) (liability under Section 20(a) requires a showing of “culpable participation” by Section 20(a) defendant); Lanza v. Drexel & Co., supra, 479 F.2d at 1299 (intent of Congress in passing Section 20(a) “was obviously to impose liability only on those directors . .. who are in some meaningful sense culpable participants in the fraud perpetrated by controlled persons”); Sennott v. Rodman & Renshaw, 474 F.2d 32 , 40 n.5 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 414 …
Maschhoff
v.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW
v.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW
No. 75-1338.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 24, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (2) · W.D. Pennsylvania (2)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.