green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
10.6 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. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Randall Ex Rel. Estate of Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
(2×)
But see Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 846-47 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Carlos Briseno Zuniga
informant fees are neither unlawful nor unduly prejudicial per se
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.
discussed
Cited "see"
Smock v. State
See State v. Epperson, 571 S.W.2d 260 (Mo.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); People v. McGee, 140 Ill.App.3d 677 , 95 Ill.Dec. 218 , 489 N.E.2d 439 (1986) (upholding warrantless entry of a residence without evidence that the officer believed that someone inside the house may have been in need of aid because of the uncertainty of what officers would find upon entering the residence based upon the odor and the general condition of the house as seen through the windows), appeal denied.
discussed
Cited "see"
Chase v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming, Partnership
See Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 , citing Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 , 74 S.Ct. 202 , 98 L.Ed. 143 (1953).
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).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Richard Aichele
(2×)
See United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (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).
cited
Cited "see"
Slay v. Quarles Drilling Co.
See, Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield, 580 F.2d 841 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 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).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Harry E. Claiborne
See United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242 , 1249 n. 10 (9th Cir.1978) (characterizing a request for everything tending to impeach the credibility of an identified witness as a general request) cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979); Ostrer v. United States, 577 F.2d 782, 786 (2d Cir. 1978) (characterizing a request for material useful to cross-examine an identified witness with respect to bias as a general request) ce rt. denied, 439 U.S. 1115 , 99 S.Ct. 1018 , 59 L.Ed.2d 73 (1979); United States v. DiCarlo, 575 F.2d 952, 959 (1st Cir.1978) (characterizing a reque…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Dennis Leo Lehman
(2×)
See United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir.1978) (evidence requested to impeach key government witness who has been extensively cross-examined is cumulative and thus not material), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Houston North Hospital Properties v. Telco Leasing, Inc.
See Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 845 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); Whitaker v. Coleman, 115 F.2d 305, 306 (5th Cir. 1940).
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. Michael Rudy Tham
See United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1252 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Packard
(2×)
See United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S. Ct. 2822 , 61 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brandon
Accord, State v. Epperson, 571 S.W.2d 260 (Mo. banc 1978), cert, denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979). 4 Once legitimately in the apartment under the exigent circumstances related, all items seized and introduced in evidence, e. g., spent cartridge casings and ammunition clips and photographs of the open apartment, were absolutely in plain view of the police.
discussed
Cited "see"
Odom Construction Company, Inc. v. United States Department Of Labor
See Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 843-45 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); 1A Benedict on Admiralty § 16a (1979); cf. Fusco v. Perini North River Assoc., 601 F.2d 659 , 668 (2d Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded, 444 U.S. 1028 , 100 S.Ct. 697 , 62 L.Ed.2d 664 (1980) (claimant must have major activities on navigable waters).
discussed
Cited "see"
Odom Construction Co. v. United States Department of Labor
See Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 843-45 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979); 1A Benedict on Admiralty § 16a (1979); cf. Fusco v. Perini North River Assoc., 601 F.2d 659 , 668 (2d Cir. 1979), vacated and remanded, 444 U.S. 1028 , 100 S.Ct. 697 , 62 L.Ed.2d 664 (1980) (claimant must have major activities on navigable waters).
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).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jaye Wilson
Chanen, supra at 1313 ; accord United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9 Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Robinson
See State v. Epperson, 571 S.W.2d 260, 263 (Mo. banc 1978), cert. denied 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. B AND D PLASTICS, INC.
See also Thibodaux v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 580 F.2d 841, 847 (5th Cir.1978) cert. denied 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2820 , 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (holding that the exclusive provision under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act could not be applied if to do so would conflict with maritime policy and undermine substantive rights afforded by federal maritime law).
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."
Mario Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A., Sanofi Incorporated, and Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Incorporated
Compare Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234 (2 Cir.1978) (there is a private right of action under § 17(a)), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 (1979), with Schlifke v. Seafirst Corp., 866 F.2d 935 (7 Cir.1989) (refusing to imply a private right of action under § 17(a)), and Newcome v. Esrey, 862 F.2d 1099 (4 Cir.1988) (en banc) (same), and Currie v. Cayman Resources Corp., 835 F.2d 780 (11 Cir.1988) (same), and In re Washington Pub.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Frederick Ines Gordon, United States of America v. Edward Loeswick
To escape the Brady sanction, disclosure “must be made at a time when disclosure would be of value to the accused.” United States v. Davenport, 753 F.2d 1460, 1462 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir.1978) (delay in disclosure only requires reversal if it so prejudiced appellant’s preparation or presentation of his defense that he was prevented from receiving a fair trial), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979).
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."
State v. Pollitt
See, e.g., United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1247 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S. Ct. 2822 , 61 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lawson
(2×)
See also United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1251 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909 , 99 S.Ct. 2822 , 61 L.Ed.2d 275 (1979) (special verdicts are disfavored in criminal jury trials); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 512 (2d ed. 1982) (special verdicts are disfavored because they restrict the jury’s right to return a verdict in the teeth of the law and facts.) Defendant also argues that it was inconsistent to give a “but for” test for causation with a proximate cause instruction.
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."
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."
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."
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…
North Carolina
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 18-1231.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 29, 1979.
442 U.S. 909
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.