green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.8 score
“class certification motions are not subject to the same standards as motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim or for summary judgment.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ziemack v. Centel Corp.
class certification motions are not subject to the same standards as motions for dismissal for failure to state a claim or for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Carter v. Carter (In Re Carter)
issue preclusion does not attach unless it is clearly shown that the parties intended that the issue be foreclosed in other litigation.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Johnie M. Owens
timeliness may not be disregarded in all cases regarding disqualification under 455(a).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lomas, R. v. Kravitz, J.
See Delesdemier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982) (motion untimely when judge made disclosure of relationship pre-trial and recusal motion was made for first time on appeal after two full trials); Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., [ 609 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.1980)] (grounds for recusal raised for first time on appeal not waived because it was not discovered until after trial); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980) (cannot raise grounds for …
discussed
Cited "see"
Stevens v. InPhonic, Inc.
See In re Health Mgmt., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 40, 44 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (quoting Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572 (2d Cir.1982), cert denied 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 , and cert. denied, 459 U.S. 908 , 103 S.Ct. 213 , 74 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982) (holding that whether a disclosure was curative should not be decided on a motion to dismiss where there is a “substantial question[ ] of fact” regarding the scope or time *129 limit of a class)).
cited
Cited "see"
Mendez v. Radec Corp.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 571 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Scholtisek v. Eldre Corp.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 571 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, 673 F.2d 566 , 570-71 (2d Cir.) (pre-certification inquiry inappropriate because class certification motions are subject to less rigorous procedural standards than motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 , 459 U.S. 908 , 103 S.Ct. 213 , 74 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982); Brickman v. Tyco Toys, Inc., 731 F.Supp. 101, 107 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (district court may not look to merits of securities fraud claim in determining whether class certification is appropriate).
cited
Cited "see"
Wilson v. United States
See Yachts Amer- ica, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 26, 29 , 673 F.2d 356, 359 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982). .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1992) (This court has held that proof of reckless conduct meets the requirement of scienter in a section 10(b) claim____ For the imposition of aider and abettor liability under section 10(b), however, we have held that recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement where ‘the alleged aider and abettor owes a fiduciary duty to the defrauded party.’ (citations omitted)); Decker v. Massey-Ferguson, Ltd., 681 F.2d 111, 120 (2d Cir.1982) (“Assuming for the argumen…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Prudential Securities Inc. Ltd. Partnership Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982), 459 U.S. 908 , 103 S.Ct. 213 , 74 L.Ed.2d 170 (1982) (“a district court may decertify a class if it appears that the requirements of Rule 23 are not in fact met”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,237, 40 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 18 Michael F. Malone Seth Rosenberg v. Microdyne Corporation Philip Cunningham Christopher M. Maginniss
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572-76 (2d Cir.) (holding defendants liable for securities fraud because they reported consignment transactions as sales), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); see also Bernstein v. Crazy Eddie, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 962, 970-71 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (stating that it is a "fraudulent practice[ ]" to treat as sales "[t]ransactions that were really consignments"). 42 Therefore, Devor's expert testimony, in conjunction with the former Microdyne employees' testimony and the other evidence that the plaintiffs presented at trial, …
discussed
Cited "see"
Malone v. Microdyne Corp.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572-76 (2d Cir.) (holding defendants liable for securities fraud because they reported consignment transactions as sales), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); see also Bernstein v. Crazy Eddie, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 962, 970-71 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (stating that it is a “fraudulent practice[ ]” to treat as sales “transactions that were really consignments”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Paper Corp. of the United States v. Schoeller Technical Papers, Inc.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); Quintel Corp., N.V. v. Citibank, N.A., 606 F.Supp. 898, 905 (S.D.N.Y.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Oppenheimer-Palmieri Fund, L.P. v. Peat Marwick Main & Co.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 , 578 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); McCoy v. Goldberg, 778 F.Supp. 201, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Crazy Eddie Securities Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 , 578 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); McCoy v. Goldberg, 778 F.Supp. 201, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Werner v. Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Kirschner Medical Corp. Securities Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 571-72 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); Cruden v. Bank of New York, [1987-1988] Fed.Sec.L.Rep.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. H. Wailen York
See Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116, 121 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Goldman v. McMahan, Brafman, Morgan & Co.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,675 W. Monroe Stephenson v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc. And James E. Welch
See Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 , 121—23 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bozsi Ltd. Partnership v. Lynott
While the complaint makes no explicit allegations of scienter, recklessness is alleged, and in this Circuit “proof of reckless conduct will generally satisfy the requirement of scienter in a Section 10(b) claim.” In re Investors Funding Corp. of New York Securities Litigation, 523 F.Supp. 550, 558 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (Conner, J.); see Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); IIT, An Int’l Investment Trust v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 923 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Olympia Brewing Co. Securities Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 578 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 80 (1982); Tucker v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 646 F.2d 721 , 727 n. 7 (2d Cir.1981); Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534, 559 (5th Cir.1981), rev’d on other grounds, 459 U.S. 375 , 103 S.Ct. 683 , 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); Heizer, 601 F.2d at 334 ; Jordan v. Madison Leasing Co., 596 F.Supp. 707, 711 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Marrero, 473 F.Supp. at 1278 ; Stratton Group Ltd. v. Sprayregen, 466 F.Supp. 1180, 1185 (S.D.N.Y.1979); McLean, 449 F.Supp. at 1266-67 ; Alexander & …
discussed
Cited "see"
White v. Bowen
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 , 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974); see Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982). 5 Nonetheless, we do not agree with the Secretary that Rule 23(c)(1) absolutely proscribes post-judgment amendments.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Aov Industries, Inc. Appeal of Hubert R. Bruce
(2×)
It is within the discretion of the court of appeals, however, to make limited exceptions to this rule when “injustice might otherwise result.” Id. at 121 , 96 S.Ct. at 2877 (citation omitted); see Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 675 F.2d 308, 326 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barber v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
See Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 673 F.2d 356 , 230 Ct.Cl. 26 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1984) (consent decree, based on settlement agreement expressing clear intent to resolve issues once and for all, precluded relitigation of issue in prior suit); Green v. Ancora-Citronelle Corp., 577 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1978) (same); Harrison v. Bloomfield Building Industries, 435 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir.1970) (same); see also James, supra, at 193 (“Where the agreement upon which a consent judgment is based is fairly to be construed as providing that the parties…
discussed
Cited "see"
39 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1092, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,825 Charles R. Barber v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, District Lodge No. 57
See Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 673 F.2d 356 , 230 Ct.Cl. 26 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1984) (consent decree, based on settlement agreement expressing clear intent to resolve issues once and for all, precluded relitigation of issue in prior suit); Green v. Ancora-Citronelle Corp., 577 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1978) (same); Harrison v. Bloomfield Building Industries, 435 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir.1970) (same); see also James, supra, at 193 ("Where the agreement upon which a consent judgment is based is fairly to be construed as providing that the parties s…
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Warner Communications Securities Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 577-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Javier Sanchez-Espinoza v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States
(2×)
See Proctor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 675 F.2d 308, 326 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(2×)
See Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982) (motion untimely when judge made disclosure of relationship pre-trial and recusal motion was made for first time on appeal after two full trials); Potashnick v. Port City Construction Co., supra (ground for recusal raised for first time on appeal not waived because it was not discovered until after trial); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980) (can not raise grounds for recusal for first time on …
cited
Cited "see"
In re Victor Technologies Securities Litigation
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566 , 571-72 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Schlanger v. Four-Phase Systems, Inc.
See Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982), citing, IIT v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 923 (2d Cir.1980). *135 On the basis of the affidavits submitted by defendants, this Court cannot conclude that they did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the public in releasing the December 2nd statement.
cited
Cited "see"
Hemingway v. Ochsner Clinic
Accord, Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Hemingway v. Ochsner Clinic
Accord, Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
cited
Cited "see"
Carolyn Conley v. Board of Trustees of Grenada County Hospital
See Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116, 124-25 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
The Seventh Circuit has stated as follows: [I]f the parties to a consent decree “indicated clearly the intention that the de *804 cree to be entered shall not only terminate the litigation of claims but, also, determine finally certain issues, then their intention should be effectuated.” [Kaspar Wire Works, 575 F.2d] at 539; see also Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 26 , 673 F.2d 356, 360-62 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982); 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Seidman v. American Mobile Systems
See e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 576-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pozzi v. Smith
See e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 576-78 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Marksman Partners, L.P. v. Chantal Pharmaceutical Corp.
Malone, 26 F.3d at 478 ; see also Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 572-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.
See, e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); IIT, an International Investment Trust v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 923 (2d Cir.1980); Lanza v. Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1305 (2d Cir.1973) (en banc).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Waterhouse
See, e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); McLean v. Alexander, 599 F.2d 1190 , 1196 & n. 12 (3d Cir.1979); Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Sundstrand Corp. v. Sun Chemical Corp., 553 F.2d 1033, 1044-45 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 875 , 98 S.Ct. 224 , 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Leslie v. Hart (In Re Hart)
As stated in Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Eng’g & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1978), if the parties to a consent decree “indicated clearly the intention that the decree to be entered shall not only terminate the litigation of claims but, also, determine finally certain issues, then their intention should be effectuated.” Id. at 539 ; see also, Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 26 , 673 F.2d 356, 360-62 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982); 18 C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. New America High Income Fund
See, e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 577 (2d Cir.) (holding that market response must be considered in calculating damages under § 10(b)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); Akerman v. Oryx Communications, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 363, 370 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (market decline is “obvious evidence of a causal relationship between a misstated fact and a stock’s inaccurate valuation”), aff 'd in part, 810 F.2d 336 (2d Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Laser Arms Corp. Securities Litigation
See, e.g., Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 575 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); IIT v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 923 (2d Cir.1980); cf. Mayer v. Oil Field Sys.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stubbs v. Dudley
See also Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); 9 C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stubbs v. Dudley
See also Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 80 (1982); 9 C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. The State Of Alabama
Illuminating Co., 503 F.Supp. 368, 381 (N.D.Ohio 1980) (quoting United States v. Conforte, 457 F.Supp. 641 , 654 n. 7 (D.Nev.1978), aff'd, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980)); see also Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 , 122 n. 4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Alabama
Illuminating Co., 503 F.Supp. 368, 381 (N.D.Ohio 1980) (quoting United States v. Conforte, 457 F.Supp. 641 , 654 n. 7 (D.Nev.1978), aff’d, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 , 101 S.Ct. 568 , 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980)); see also Delesdernier v. Porterie, 666 F.2d 116 , 122 n. 4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Francine Klingman v. Melvin E. Levinson
As stated in Raspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Eng’g & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1978), if the parties to a consent decree “indicated clearly the intention that the decree to be entered shall not only terminate the litigation of claims but, also, determine finally certain issues, then their intention should be effectuated.” Id. at 539 ; see also Yachts Am., Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 26 , 673 F.2d 356, 360-62 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 839 , 103 S.Ct. 86 , 74 L.Ed.2d 81 (1982); 18 C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ferguson
v.
Union Mutual Stock Life Insurance Company of America
v.
Union Mutual Stock Life Insurance Company of America
No. 81-2374.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1982.
Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.