green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.0 score
“where a futures market exists for a good, service, right, or interest, it may be regulated by cftc, as a commodity.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc.
where a futures market exists for a good, service, right, or interest, it may be regulated by cftc, as a commodity.
discussed
Cited "see"
Weikel v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
(2×)
See Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365, 368 (2d Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 1027 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982); Kaplan v. Pomerantz, 132 F.R.D. 504, 510-11 (N.D.Ill.1990) (counsel for plaintiff was at least silent partner in, and at most encouraged, false testimony of plaintiff).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman Electric, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co.
(2×)
See Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365, 368 (2d Cir.1981) (the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that plaintiff’s lack of credibility rendered her an inadequate class representative), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1107 , 102 S.Ct. 3486 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1368 (1982), vacated as moot sub nom, Price Waterhouse v. Panzirer, 459 U.S. 1027 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grossman v. Waste Management, Inc.
(2×)
See Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365 (2d Cir.1981), vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1027 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982); see also cases cited at n. 4 supra. Though the causal chain is certainly weaker than in the normal case, and though a jury might conclude at trial that it is in fact nonexistent, for present purposes plaintiffs’ theory is a viable one.
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,512 Richard N. Abrams v. Oppenheimer Government Securities, Inc. And James Zurek
See Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. S.E.C., 677 F.2d 1137 (7th Cir.1982), vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1026 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 -595.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cohen v. Laiti
See Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365, 368 (2d Cir.1981), vacated as moot sub nom Price-Waterhouse v. Panzirer, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982); Goldberg v. Taylor Wine Co., 27 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghan) 1298 , 1301 (E.D.N.Y.1979); Weisman v. Darneille, 78 F.R.D. 669 (S.D.N.Y.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fogarazzo v. Lehman Bros.
(2×)
See, e.g., Finkel, 817 F.2d at 360 (noting that the fraud on the market presumption "constructs an environment which is hospitable to the reliance presumption of Affiliated Ute” and that the two presumptions "interact”); see also Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365, 368 (2d Cir.1981) (noting, before Basic approved the fraud on the market theory, that "[r]elying on Affiliated Ute, this and other circuits do not require direct reliance where the fraud affects the market, on the ground that an investor relies generally on the supposition that the market price is validly set and that no unsuspected…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Salomon Forex Inc. v. Tauber
See also Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. S.E.C., 677 F.2d 1137, 1154 (7th Cir.), vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1026 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982) (finding, in the context of Government National Mortgage Association options, that "the options market may exist without any transactions in the commodity itself’ and that a GNMA option is a transaction "in” government securities under the Treasury Amendment ' "[o]nly when the option holder exercises the option.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McKenna v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
As plaintiff contends in her own behalf, where the language of an enactment is clear, “there is no occasion for construction and the statute must be given effect according to its plain and unambiguous meaning.” National Association of Broadcasters v. F.C.C., 740 F.2d 1190, 1202 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Connecticut v. Schweiker, 684 F.2d 979, 990 (D.C.Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1027 , 103 S.Ct. 1197 , 75 L.Ed.2d 440 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grossman v. Waste Management, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Panzirer v. Wolf, 663 F.2d 365, 368 (2d Cir.1981), vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1027 , 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982); Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 906-08 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 , 97 S.Ct. 57 , 50 L.Ed.2d 75 (1976); HSL, Inc. v. Daniels, [Current] Fed.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, and Chicago Mercantile Exchange
See, e.g., Chicago Bd. Options Exchange, Inc. v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 434 , 74 L.Ed.2d 594 (1982) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Price Waterhouse
v.
Panzirer
v.
Panzirer
No. 81-1998.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 29, 1982.
Cited by 44 opinions | Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 458 U. S. 1105.] In light of the respondents’ suggestion of mootness and the petitioner’s response, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.