green
Positive treatment
7.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
DuPont v. Brady
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
But see Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38, 45-46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978) (common law recklessness standard is interpretive source of securities law); Freschi, 767 F.2d at 1050 (elements are same for common law and securities law fraud).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Mauriber v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
But see Rolf v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 424 F.Supp. 1021, 1039 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (citing Hecht v. Harris, 283 F.Supp. 417, 436 (N.D.Cal.1968) (annual turnover rate of 1.7 excessive) for the proposition that an annual rate never higher than 1.85 was not excessive), modified on other grounds, 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Spivey v. Turpin
(2×)
See Spivey v. Georgia, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 699 (1978) (mem.).
cited
Cited "see"
Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp.
See Rolf v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 424 F.Supp. 1021, 1024 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Robbins v. Moore Medical Corp.
Jan. 15, 1992); see generally Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Komanoff v. Mabon, Nugent & Co.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Richardson, 693 F.Supp. at 1456; Van Alen v. Dominick & Dominick, Inc., 441 F.Supp. 389, 402 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff'd, 560 F.2d 547 (2d Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); In re Phillips Petroleum Securities Litigation, 881 F.2d 1236, 1244 (3d Cir.1989); Broad v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 642 F.2d 929, 961-62 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 965 , 102 S.Ct. 506 , 70 L.Ed.2d 380 (1981); Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d 1564, 1569 (9th Cir.1990) (en bane), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 976 , 111 S.Ct. 1621 , 113 L.Ed.2d 719 (1991); Hackbart v. Holmes, 675 F.2d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kay Hollinger Richard Llewelyn Jones Edward E. Nissen Judy D'Arcy K-Judy, Ltd. v. Titan Capital Corp. Emil Wilkowski Painter Financial Group, Ltd.
(2×)
The Sunstrand court went on to explain that “the danger of misleading buyers must be actually known or so obvious that any reasonable man would be legally bound as knowing, and the omission must derive from something more egregious than even ‘white heart/empty head’ good faith.” Id. (footnotes omitted); accord Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 47 (2d Cir.) (Reckless conduct is conduct that is “highly unreasonable” and represents “an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care ... to the extent that the ... defendant must have been aware of it.”) (quoti…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re SmithKline Beckman Corp. Securities Litigation
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 49 n. 22 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978). “[I]t is virtually impossible to predict with any certainty which testimony would be credited, and ultimately, which damages would be found to have been caused by actionable, rather than the myriad nonactionable factors such as general market conditions.” In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F.Supp. 735, 744-45 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff 'd, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Bernstein v. Crazy Eddie, Inc.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Bruce v. Martin
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Behrens v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 49 n. 22 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Terra Resources I v. Burgin
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir.) (reassuring victim of defrauder’s competence part of “substantial assistance”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Zaro v. Mason
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38, 44-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Chilcott
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon and Co. Inc., 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Morris v. Gilbert
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 47-48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); accord, e.g., Caleb & Co. v. E.I.
discussed
Cited "see"
Underwood v. American Home Mortgage Corp. (In Re Underwood)
See Mirabel v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 537 F.2d 871 (7th Cir.1976), later app., 576 F.2d 729 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 699 (1978); Detillo v. J.R.
cited
Cited "see"
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Baldwin-United Corp.
See, Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon and Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir.1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Sealy Inc.
See Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 576 F.2d 729, 731 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 699 (1978); Samuels, 80 F.R.D. at 294 .
cited
Cited "see"
Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Company v. Sealy Incorporated
See Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 576 F.2d 729, 731 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 699 (1978); Samuels, 80 F.R.D. at 294 .
cited
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Scott
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armstrong v. McAlpin
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Kaufman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 464 F.Supp. 528, 536 (D.Md.1978); Faturik v. Woodmere Securities, Inc., 431 F.Supp. 894, 896 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armstrong v. Mcalpin
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Kaufman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 464 F.Supp. 528, 536 (D.Md.1978); Faturik v. Woodmere Securities, Inc., 431 F.Supp. 894, 896 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Bolton v. Gramlich
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co. Inc., 570 F.2d 38, 44-48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Securities And Exchange Commission v. Peter E. Aaron
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Aaron
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Seymour v. Bache & Co., Inc.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 43 & n.6 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1979) (noting that “there is no case decided by this court upholding, but there are several cases discussing, ... an implied private cause of action from . . .
cited
Cited "see"
State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp.
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
IIT v. Cornfeld
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38 , 47-48 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); SEC v. Coffey, 493 F.2d 1304, 1316 (6 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 908 , 95 S.Ct. 826 , 42 L.Ed.2d 837 (1975); Woodward v. Metro Bank of Dallas, 522 F.2d 84, 94-97 (5 Cir. 1975); Marbury Management, Inc. v. Kohn, 470 F.Supp. 509, 515 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Steinberg v. Carey
See Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Bonime v. Doyle, 416 F.Supp. 1372 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff’d mem., 556 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1977); ALI, Federal Securities Code § 1708(b)(2) (Proposed Off.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stone
Such a mental state “can be established by alleging facts to show either (1) that defendants had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud, or (2) strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, that is, a state of mind approximating actual intent, and not merely a heightened form of negligence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Rolf v. Blythe, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38 , 44-47 (2d Cir. 1978) (holding that allegations amounting to recklessness can satisfy the scienter requirement), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Abbondante v. Securities & Exchange Commission
See Hanly v. SEC, 415 F.2d 589, 595-96 (2d Cir.1969) (holding that brokers are under a duty to investigate the truth of the assertions they make to their clients regarding a security and may not “recklessly state facts about matters of which [they are] ignorant”); see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 46 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978) (stating that scienter may be established by showing a reckless disregard for the truth).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheldon Co. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust v. Smith
See also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 637 F.2d 77, 80 , (2d Cir.1980) (On appeal from remand, the Second Circuit specifically disavowed its earlier broad reading of Rolf, 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978), stating that Rolf “does not impose liability on a broker-dealer who merely executed orders for ‘unsuitable’ securities made by an investment adviser vested with sole discretionary authority to control the account.”) No evidence exists- in this record that plaintiffs and defendants Oppenheimer and Altman had a special rel…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ades v. Deloitte & Touche
See Breard v. Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd., 941 F.2d 142, 144 (2d Cir.1991) (under § 10(b), scienter includes recklessness); Griffin v. McNiff, 744 F.Supp. 1237, 1245 (S.D.N.Y.1990). 6 An inference of “recklessness” satisfying the scienter requirement may be drawn from facts demonstrating conduct that the defendant disseminated material “knowing [it was] false or that the method of preparation was so egregious as to render [the] dissemination reckless.” Estate of Detwiler v. Offenbecher, 728 F.Supp. 103, 137 (S.D.N.Y.1989), quoted in CL-Alexanders Laing & Cruickshank v. Goldfeld, 739 F.Sup…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Akin v. Q-L Investments, Inc.
Woodward, 522 F.2d at 97 ; Abell, 858 F.2d at 1127 ; see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 44-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978); Woods v. Barnett Bank, 765 F.2d 1004, 1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 1985); Cleary v. Perfectune, Inc., 700 F.2d 774, 777 (1st Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
W.O. Akin v. Q-L Investments, Inc., Etc., Laventhol & Horwath
Woodward, 522 F.2d at 97 ; Abell, 858 F.2d at 1127 ; see also 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); Woods v. Barnett Bank, 765 F.2d 1004, 1010, 1011 (11th Cir.1985); Cleary v. Perfectune, Inc., 700 F.2d 774, 777 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca8 1991
See Kassman v. American Univ., 546 F.2d 1029, 1035 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam); see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 50 (2d Cir.) (holding that Rule 10b-5 damages must be offset by amount of settlement), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves
See Kassman v. American Univ., 546 F.2d 1029, 1035 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam); see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 50 (2d Cir.) (holding that Rule 10b-5 damages must be offset by amount of settlement), ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Knight v. EF Hutton and Co., Inc.
Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has held that there is no private cause of action under the federal securities laws for violation of both the NYSE “know your customer rule” and the NASD “suitability rule.” Thompson v. Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co., 709 F.2d 1413, 1419 (11th Cir.1983); see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38 , 43 & n. 6 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
James K. Campbell, Cross-Appellants v. Shearson/american Express Inc., and J. Gary Morgan, Cross-Appellees
See also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1039 (1978), on remand, Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Gas Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation
See also, e.g., Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38, 45 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978) (securities broker owed fiduciary duty to client).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mladen v. Gunty
Bloor v. Carro, Spanbock, Londin, Rodman & Foss, 754 F.2d at 62 ; see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 47-48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978). 5 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
DMI Furniture, Inc. v. Brown, Kraft & Co.
See, e.g., Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978). 35 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dean Woods v. Barnett Bank Of Fort Lauderdale
(2×)
White v. Sanders, 689 F.2d 1366 , 1367 n. 4 (11th Cir.1982); Broad v. Rockwell International Corp., 642 F.2d 929, 961 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 965 , 102 S.Ct. 506 , 70 L.Ed.2d 380 (1981). 22 Severe recklessness is limited to those highly unreasonable omissions or misrepresentations that involve not merely simple or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and that present a danger of misleading buyers or sellers which is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it. 23 Broad, 6…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Woods v. Barnett Bank
(2×)
Broad, 642 F.2d at 961-62 . 9 Severe recklessness can satisfy the scienter requirement in an aiding and abetting case, at least where the alleged aider and abettor owes a duty to the defrauded party. 10 Woodward, 522 F.2d at 96-97 ; see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); IIT v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 923-25 (2d Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,922 James Bloor v. Carro, Spanbock, Londin, Rodman & Fass
See also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38 , 44 & n. 8 (2d Cir.) (scienter required for § 10(b) also necessary for aiding and abetting liability), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 , 96 S.Ct. 1375 , 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Klock v. Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc.
See, e.g., Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., Inc., 570 F.2d 38 , 43 & n. 6 (2d Cir.1978), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978) (noting that "[t]here is no case decided by this Court" upholding "an implied private cause of action from violations of NYSE Rule 405 and the NASD constitution, Article III, Section 2.”); Juster v. Rothschild, Unterberg, Tow-bin, 554 F.Supp. 331, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Picard v. Wall St.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Myron v. Chicoine
Compare Florida Power & Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579, 590 (5th Cir. 1981) with Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 50 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 , 99 S.Ct. 642 , 58 L.Ed.2d 698 (1978), appeal after remand, 637 F.2d 77 , 86-87 (1980).
Interstate Commerce Commission
v.
Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.
v.
Chicago & North Western Transportation Co.
No. 78-411.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 4, 1978.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.