green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.1 score
“since failure to obey a court judgment is an indirect contempt, notice by an order to show cause and a plenary hearing are appropriate.”
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Peters
But see Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 282 (7th Cir.) (Sections 14(e) and 10(b) "are coextensive in their antifraud provisions____ They are therefore construed in pari materia by courts.”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dorsett v. County of Nassau
since failure to obey a court judgment is an indirect contempt, notice by an order to show cause and a plenary hearing are appropriate.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Interdynamics, Inc., and Smiths Industries, Limited v. Firma Wolf, Arend Wolf, and Trans Tech, Inc. Appeal of Trans Tech, Inc
(2×)
interdynamics i
cited
Cited "see"
Buckley v. Airshield Corp.
See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 454 U.S. *378 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); American Equip.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Buchanan
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271 , 293 n. 6 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981) (affirming trial court’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ proffered expert testimony on the ordinary standards against which the actions of boards of directors and investment bankers would be measured because such evidence would impinge on the function of the trial court); FDIC v. Greenwood, 719 F.Supp. 749, 751 (C.D.Ill.1989) (allowing expert testimony so long as it does not usurp court’s function).
cited
Cited "see"
Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S. Ct. 658 , 70 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. City of Philadelphia
See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); see also Roe v. Operation Rescue, 920 F.2d 213, 217 (3d Cir.1990) (due process before imposing civil contempt requires an "opportunity granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case"). 45 However, the City did not object in the district court on constitutional grounds to the court's procedure in finding it had violated the Amended Stipulation without entering an order to show cause and without giving …
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. City of Philadelphia
See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); see also Roe v. Operation Rescue, 920 F.2d 213, 217 (3d Cir.1990) (due process before imposing civil contempt requires an “opportunity granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Weill v. Dominion Resources, Inc.
See Banter v. Marshall Field, 646 F.2d 271, 278-81, 287-89 (7th Cir.) (shareholder cannot bootstrap breach of fiduciary duty claim into a § 10(b) action by alleging nondisclosure of culpability), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. William Morris D/B/A Bill's Custom Cycles
See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 97 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Walter v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 291-93 (7th Cir.) (affirming directed verdict for defendants on securities fraud claim based on omission of five-year income projections "because the projections ... were tentative estimates prepared for the enlightenment of management with no expectation that they be made public”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,344
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 291-93 (7th Cir.) (affirming directed verdict for defendants on securities fraud claim based on omission of five-year income projections "because the projections ... were tentative estimates prepared for the enlightenment of management with no expectation that they be made public"), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). 54 As for the relevance of the Boxer Report to the plaintiffs' decision, nothing indicates that plaintiffs would have placed any greater reliance on the Boxer projections than on the numerous other…
cited
Cited "see"
The Roots Partnership v. Lands' End, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 292 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Roots Partnership v. Lands' End, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 292 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re First Chicago Corp. Securities Litigation
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Ashkanazy v. I. Rokeach & Sons, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 298 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Craftmatic Securities Litigation
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.) (shareholder cannot "bootstrap" breach of fiduciary duty claim into a Sec. 10(b) action by alleging nondisclosure of culpability), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Craftmatic Securities Litigation v. Kraftsow
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.) (shareholder cannot “bootstrap” breach of fiduciary duty claim into a § 10(b) action by alleging nondisclosure of culpability), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
FMC Corp. v. Boesky
See Rich, 712 F.2d at 1181, 1183 ; Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579, 598-99 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974) (citing Dyer); Dyer, 336 F.Supp. at 907 ; S.E.C. v. Texas International Co., 498 F.Supp. 1231, 1240 (N.D.Ill.1980) (Marshall, J.); see generally Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 285-86 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Loss, Fundamentals of Securities Regulations, 497 (1988) (“There are two ways to capture control of an unwilling target company: proxy contests and tende…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jaroslawicz v. Engelhard Corp.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 292-93 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981) (setting forth criteria for attributing evidentiary weight to an internal report). 13 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Rankow v. First Chicago Corp.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 282 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed. 2d 631 (1981); Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 554 F.2d 790, 792 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1005 , 101 S.Ct. 1719 , 68 L.Ed.2d 210 (1981); Sundstrand Corp. v. Sun Chem.
cited
Cited "see"
Keyser v. Commonwealth National Financial Corp.
Assocs., supra, at 685 (citations omitted); see Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 294 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Holstein v. UAL Corp.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 285 (7th Cir.1985) (Williams Act general anti-fraud provision inapplicable where proposed tender offer never became effective, because the language “seem[s] to contemplate the existence of an effective offer capable of acceptance” and “the legislative history is replete with indications that Congress intended to protect an investor faced with the pressures generated by the exigencies of the tender offer context”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Irving Kas v. Financial General Bankshares, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Willco Kuwait (Trading) SAK v. DeSavary
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 286 (7th Cir.) (where no deadline and no premium, shareholders “were simply not subjected to the proscribed pressures the Williams Act was designed to alleviate”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Brascan Ltd. v. Edper Equities, 477 F.Supp. at 789-92 (without high premium and threat that the offer will disappear, large purchases in short time do not represent the kind of pressure the Williams Act was designed to prevent); Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 449 F.Supp. 951, 961 (S.D.N.Y.), aff…
cited
Cited "see"
Tom F. Pruitt v. Edward R. Chow, Kerry W. Pearson, and John J. Placek
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
North Broadway Motors, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of North America, Inc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 298 (7th Cir.) (Illinois law), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Knapp, 548 F.Supp. at 1117 ; Bank Computer, 110 Ill.App.3d at 500-01 , 66 Ill.Dec. at 166-67 , 442 N.E.2d at 592-93 .
cited
Cited "see"
Dixon v. Ladish Co.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 291 (7th Cir.), cert. den., 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sure Plus Manufacturing Co. v. Hy Kobrin and Kobrin Manufacturing, Inc.
See Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf, 653 F.2d 93, 98 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Sieving v. Hansen, 346 F.2d 474, 477 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 943 , 86 S.Ct. 400 , 15 L.Ed.2d 352 (1965); Hopp Press, Inc. v. Joseph Freeman & Co., 323 F.2d 636, 638 (2d Cir.1963); 8 A. Deller, Deller’s Walker on Patents, Sec. 736 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Data Probe Acquisition Corp. v. Datatab, Inc.
(2×)
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 282-83 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
K & R Leasing Corp. v. General Motors Corp., Etc.
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 298 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 766, 766A, 767 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Knapp v. McCoy
See Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 298 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp.
See, e.g., Banter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981) (where a tender offer was withdrawn before plaintiffs had the opportunity to decide whether to tender their shares, it was impossible for plaintiffs to rely on any alleged deception in making their decision to tender); Lewis v. McGraw, 619 F.2d 192, 195 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 951 , 101 S.Ct. 354 , 66 L.Ed.2d 214 (1980) (where no tender offer was consummated, no reliance was possible under any imaginable set of facts).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications Corporation
See also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 292 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Granada Investments, Inc. v. DWG Corp.
See also, Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 297 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Cramer v. General Telephone & Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dowling v. Narragansett Capital Corp.
See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 292 (7th Cir.) (no duty to disclose financial projections), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 478 F.2d 1281, 1294 (2d Cir.1973) (no duty to disclose asset appraisals; no Second Circuit rule on financial projections).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kahn v. Lynden Inc.
See 797 F.2d at 717-18 ; see also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 282 (7th Cir.) (courts construe claims under Rule 10b-5 and section 14(e) in pari materia), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); 4 Bromberg § 8.4(447), at 204.81 (“tender offers can have collective effects such as squeezeouts....
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Carriers, Inc. v. Baytree Investors, Inc.
See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 283 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bershad v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
See also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981) (policy of resisting all acquisition offers does not violate federal securities law absent deceptive conduct).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Webb v. City Of Chester
See, e.g., Continental Casualty Co. v. Howard, 775 F.2d 876, 879 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1641 , 90 L.Ed.2d 186 (1986). 15 Nevertheless, the district judge is charged with determining whether "the evidence, taken as a whole, provides a sufficient probative basis upon which a jury could reasonably reach a verdict, without 'speculation over legally unfounded claims.' " Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.) (quoting Brady v. Southern Railway, 320 U.S. 476, 480 , 64 S.Ct. 232, 234 , 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 6…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nutis v. Penn Merchandising Corp.
See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 287-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Biesenbach v. Guenther, 588 F.2d 400, 402 (3d Cir.1978); Warner Communications, Inc. v. Murdoch, 581 F.Supp. 1482 (D.Del.1984); Sanders v. Thrall Car Manufacturing Co., 582 F.Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff’d per curiam, 730 F.2d 910 (2d Cir.1984); Issen v. GSC Enterprises, 508 F.Supp. 1278 (N.D.Ill.1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Terrydale Liquidating Trust v. Barness
See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 294 (7th Cir.) (impermissible motives must predominate), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287, 293 (3d Cir.1980) (sole or primary purpose must be to retain control), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 999 , 101 S.Ct. 1704 , 68 L.Ed.2d 200 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Warner Communications, Inc. v. Murdoch
See, e.g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 288 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981); Issen v. GSC Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.Supp. 1278, 1291 (N.D.Ill.1981); Bucher v. Shumway, [1979-80 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
See Lewis v. Oppenheimer & Co., 481 F.Supp. 1199, 1204 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (securities laws require disclosure of facts not motives); see also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 290 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Brown v. Steve Brienen
(2×)
See also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Koppel v. Wien
See Lewis v. Oppenheimer & Co., 481 F.Supp. 1199, 1204 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (“the actual subjective motives behind a controlling shareholder’s recommendation of a transaction need not be disclosed, as long as the relevant underlying facts are disclosed.”); see also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F.2d 271, 290 (7th Cir.) (“there is no federal securities law duty to disclose one’s motives”), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092 , 102 S.Ct. 658 , 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Panter
v.
Marshall Field & Co.
v.
Marshall Field & Co.
No. 81-666.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 30, 1981.
Certiorari, Consideration, Motion, Took, White.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · E.D. New York (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of Marshall Field & Co. et al. to strike the brief of the Weiss respondents denied. Certio-rari denied.
Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari. Justice White and Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.