green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1983 ·
…we think the beneficiary of a pension trust, like the shareholder in a derivative suit, has standing to attack securities frauds perpetrated or threatened by the trustees of his fund.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lazzaro v. Manber
the language of 17 is broad enough to imply a private cause of action
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Norris v. Wirtz
we think the beneficiary of a pension trust, like the shareholder in a derivative suit, has standing to attack securities frauds perpetrated or threatened by the trustees of his fund.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Norris v. Wirtz
we think the beneficiary of a pension trust, like the shareholder in a derivative suit, has standing to attack securities frauds perpetrated or threatened by the trustees of his fund.
cited
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Cohn
See Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 240 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1977) and 444 U.S. 995 , 100 S.Ct. 531 , 62 L.Ed.2d 426 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Gene Allen Flores
See United States v. Cook, 586 F.2d 572, 575 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Dale v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.
See Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Overton A. Currie, an Individual v. Cayman Resources Corporation
See Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97, 99 (4th Cir.1975); Kellman v. ICS, Inc., 447 F.2d 1305, 1308-09 (6th Cir.1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rhoades v. Powell
See Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Daniel v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al, 561 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir.1977); Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97 (4th Cir.1975).
cited
Cited "see"
Krome v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
See Kirschner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 , 241 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 444 U.S. 995 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 100 S.Ct. 531 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 , 62 L.Ed.2d 426 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfredo Montemayor
See United States v. Cook, 586 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979). 6.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Daniel Freeman, Robert Temp and Alaine Carter Temp, Defendants
See United States v. Cook, 586 F.2d 572, 579 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Fed.R.Crim.P. 30, 52(b).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ASS'N OF SURROGATES v. State of NY
See also Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1978) (no Contract Clause violation where state's purpose in enacting legislation modifying contract rights was to protect the fiscal integrity of the City of New York), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters Within New York v. New York
See also Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1978) (no Contract Clause violation where state’s purpose in enacting legislation modifying contract rights was to protect the fiscal integrity of the City of New York), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Norman v. Brown, Todd & Heyburn
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979), and Daniel v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 F.2d 1223, 1245 (7th Cir.1977), rev’d on other grounds, 439 U.S. 551 , 98 S.Ct. 1232 , 55 L.Ed.2d 761 (1979), and Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97, 99 (4th Cir.1975), with Yoder v. Orthomolecular Nutrition Institute, Inc., 751 F.2d 555 , 559 n. 3 (2d Cir.1985) and Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Angelos, 762 F.2d 522, 530-31 (7th Cir.1985) and S.E.C. v. American Realty Trust, 586 F.2d 1001, 1006…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation. Henry Puchall v. Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Riley
(2×)
See also Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir.1978) ("[Tjhere was little practical point in denying the existence of an action under § 17 once it is established that an aggrieved buyer has a private action under § 10(b)."), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979). .Plaintiffs point to decisions in other circuits, which uphold an implied private right of action under section 17(a), as persuasive authority.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dannenberg v. Dorison
See, e.g., Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 ; 444 U.S. 995 , 100 S.Ct. 531 , 62 L.Ed.2d 426 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banowitz v. State Exchange Bank
Compare Keys v. Wolfe, 709 F.2d 413, 416 (5th Cir.1983), Landry v. All American Assurance Co., 688 F.2d 381, 384-91 (5th Cir.1982), and Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152, 159 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086 , 98 S.Ct. 1281 , 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978) (holding no private right of action) with Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F.2d 808, 815 (9th Cir.1981) and Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (holding such a right exists). 11 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gilman v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
Compare Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F.2d 808 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that § 17[a] supports a private right of action) and Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 (2d Cir.1978), cert, denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) *497 (same) and Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97 (4th Cir.1975) (same) and Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 342 F.2d 596 (7th Cir.1965), rev’d on other grounds, 383 U.S.-363, 86 S.Ct. 845 , 15 L.Ed.2d 807 (1966) (same) with Landry v. All American Assurance Co., 688 F.2d 381 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that § 17[a] does not support a private …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,111 Richard v. Cleary v. Perfectune, Inc.
Compare Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., 652 F. 2d 808 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that § 17(a) supports a private right of action) and Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (same) and Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97 (4th Cir.1975) (same) and Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 342 F.2d 596 (7th Cir.1965), rev’d on other grounds, 383 U.S. 363 , 86 S.Ct. 845 , 15 L.Ed.2d 807 (1966) (same) with Landry v. All American Assurance Co., 688 F.2d 381 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that § 17(a) does not support a private rig…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Norris v. Wirtz
See e.g., Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 240 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Klamberg v. Roth, 425 F.Supp. 440, 442 (S.D.N.Y.1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Herm v. Stafford
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 , 240-41 (2nd Cir. 1978) (private right of action exists), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979), and SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 , 867 (2nd Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J., concurring) (once a private cause of action is found under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, there is little practical point in denying private cause of action under Section 17 of the 1933 Act) with Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152 (8th Cir. 1977) (no private right of action), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086 , 98 S.Ct. 1281 , 55…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,681, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,335
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 , 240-41 (2nd Cir. 1978) (private right of action exists), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979), and SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 , 867 (2nd Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J., concurring) (once a private cause of action is found under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, there is little practical point in denying private cause of action under Section 17 of the 1933 Act) with Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152 (8th Cir. 1977) (no private right of action), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086 , 98 S.Ct. 1281 , 55…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Two Cases. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, White & Case, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Peat, Marwick, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Roger O. Walther, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, James F. Joy, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Donald A. Fergusson and Robert A. Fergusson, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Cortes W. Randell
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (recognizing implied remedy under § 17(a)); Daniel v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 F.2d 1223, 1245-46 (7th Cir. 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 439 U.S. 551 , 99 S.Ct. 790 , 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979) (same); Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97, 99 (4th Cir. 1975) (same), with Shull v. Dain, Kaiman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152, 159 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086 , 98 S.Ct. 1281 , 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978) (rejecting implied remedy) 20 See, e. g., Matheson…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wachovia Bank v. National Student Marketing Corp.
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (2d Cir. 1978), cert, denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (recognizing implied remedy under § 17(a)); Daniel v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 F.2d 1223, 1245-46 (7th Cir. 1977), rev’d on other grounds, 439 U.S. 551 , 99 S.Ct. 790 , 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979) (same); Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97, 99 (4th Cir. 1975) (same), with Shull v. Dain, Kaiman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152, 159 (8th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1086 , 98 S.Ct. 1281 , 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978) (rejecting implied remedy). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Nowicki
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1978) (private cause of action implied), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); [and] Newman v. Prior, 518 F.2d 97 *1068 (4th Cir. 1975) (private cause of action implied); with Shull v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 561 F.2d 152 (8th Cir. 1977) (private cause of action not implied).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Joseph Lichenstein and Leo Bella
See, e. g., United States v. Cook, 586 F.2d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2821 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (comments regarding endangering military personnel as a result of defendant’s fraud held cured by instruction); United States v. Mikka, 586 F.2d 152, 155-56 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 921 , 99 S.Ct. 1247 , 59 L.Ed.2d 474 (1979) (prosecution’s suggestion that convicted felon possessed firearm to commit more crimes held cured by admonition).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Munoz
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 78-1387.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 29, 1979.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Seventh Circuit (2) · E.D. New York (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.