green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.7 score
“he testimony of a class member, without some documentary proof of mailing, will seldom, if ever, be sufficient to meet the burden of showing a timely request to opt out.”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
ROOFER'S PENSION FUND v. PAPA
he testimony of a class member, without some documentary proof of mailing, will seldom, if ever, be sufficient to meet the burden of showing a timely request to opt out.
cited
Cited "see"
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tambone
See John Nuveen & Co. v. Sanders, 425 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976); Hochfelder, 425 U.S. at 193 , 96 S.Ct. 1375 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cecil L. Groomes
See State v. Strickland, 532 S.W.2d 912, 920 (Tenn. 1975), appeal dismissed, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S. Ct. 1657 , 48 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrosino v. Rodman & Renshaw, Inc.
See, for example, Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir.1975), vacated, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976) 16 ("Sanders I" ), and Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 619 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1005 , 101 S.Ct. 1719 , 68 L.Ed.2d 210 (1981) ("Sanders III ").
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrosino v. Rodman & Renshaw, Inc.
See, for example, Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir.1975), vacated, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976) 16 (“Sanders F’), and Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 619 F.2d 1222 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1005 , 101 S.Ct. 1719 , 68 L.Ed.2d 210 (1981) (“Sanders III”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Securities Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(2×)
See Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F. 2d 1064 (CA7 1975), vacated and remanded, 425 U. S. 929 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Quimby Island Reclamation District Facilities Corp.
See Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064, 1071 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976); 554 F.2d 790 (7th Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited "see"
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. James TAMBONE and Robert Hussey
See John Nuveen & Co. v. Sanders, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976); Hochfelder, 425 U.S. at 193 , 96 S.Ct. 1375 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Deepwater Horizon
See In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1096 (5th Cir. 1977) (“In the management of class actions, Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23 necessarily vests the district courts with a broad discretion to enable efficacious administration of the course of the proceedings . . . .”); see also Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064, 1075 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 425 U.S. 929 (1976); cf. Silvercreek Mgmt., Inc. v. Banc of Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seacor Holdings, Inc. v. Mason
See In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1096 (5th Cir.1977) (“In. the management of class, actions, Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23 necessarily vests the district courts with a broad - discretion to enable efficacious administration of the course of the proceedings — ”); see also Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064, 1075 (7th Cir.1975), vacated on other grounds, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976); cf. Silvercreek Mgmt., Inc. v. Banc of Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Citisource, Inc. Securities Litigation
NYC's interest in the hand-held computer of course presented the possibility that the need for these services would be eliminated. [12] For cases discussing the showing required to establish the good faith defense, see, e.g., Marbury Management, Inc. v. Kohn, 629 F.2d 705, 716 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1011 , 101 S.Ct. 566 , 66 L.Ed.2d 469 (1980); Paul F. Newton & Co. v. Texas, 630 F.2d 1111 , 1120 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 634 F.2d 1355 (1980); Barthe v. Rizzo, 384 F.Supp. 1063, 1069-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); see also, Note, Liability of Corporate Directors as "Controlling Persons" Under Sec…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The Sewer Alert Committee v. Pierce County
See, e.g., Shouse v. Pierce County, 403 F.Supp. 353 (W.D.Wash.1975) (3-judge court), vacated, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1658 , 48 L.Ed.2d 171 (1976), appeal after remand, 559 F.2d 1142 (9th Cir. 1977); Murphy v. Huntington, 91 Wash.2d 265 , 588 P.2d 742 (1978); Fraley v. Huntington, Pierce Co.Sup.Ct.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
O'KEEFE v. Courtney
Compare e.g., Marbury Management, Inc. v. Kohn, 629 F.2d 705, 716 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1011 , 101 S.Ct. 566 , 66 L.Ed.2d 469 (1980) (brokerage house liable as controlling person if it had the means to control principal violator’s conduct) with Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064, 1072 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976) (control by virtue of stock ownership, absent showing of active management of principal violator, not enough to establish “controlling person" liability).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
ALTON BOX BOARD COMPANY, Appellant, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS AND COMPANY, Appellee
See also Sanders v. John Nuveen & Co., 524 F.2d 1064, 1069-70 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 425 U.S. 929 , 96 S.Ct. 1659 , 48 L.Ed.2d 172 (1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lovelace
v.
Tennessee
v.
Tennessee
No. 75-6169.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 19, 1976.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Jersey (1)
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Term, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.