Morris Mac Schwebel v. Andrew D. Orrick, Harold C. Patterson, Earl F. Hastings, James C. Sargent, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C. Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Morris Mac Schwebel v. Andrew D. Orrick, Harold C. Patterson, Earl F. Hastings, James C. Sargent, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Colley v. James
D.D.C. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Plaintiffs are also incorrect that a willfulness finding is impossible because they believed they were in compliance. “[A] violation is ‘willful’ if the violator ‘(1) intentionally does an act which is prohibited, [ Jirrespective of evil motive or reliance on erroneous advice, or (2) acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements.’ ” Potato Sales Co. v. Dep’t. of Agric., 92 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); see Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701, 705 (D.D.C 1957) (“Willfulness ... has been interpreted as meaning the intentional doing of the act charged.…
discussed Cited "see" M.B.E. Inc. v. Minority Business Opportunity Commission
D.C. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701, 705 (D.D.C.1957) (“it is not essential for a specification of misconduct to include the word ‘willful’ or ‘willfully’ in order to charge a willful act if knowledge and intent are implicit in the facts recited”), aff'd, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 210 , 251 F.2d 919 (per curiam), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 927 , 78 S.Ct. 716 , 2 L.Ed.2d 759 (1958).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Touche Ross & Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701, 704 (D.D.C.1957) (district court upheld authority of Commission to proceed under Rule 2(e), affirmed on other grounds, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C.Cir.) (denial of injunction affirmed but on ground that appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 927 (1958).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Touche Ross & Co. v. Sec
2d Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schwebel v. Orrick, 153 F.Supp. 701, 704 (D.D.C.1957) (district court upheld authority of Commission to proceed under Rule 2(e), Affirmed on other grounds, 251 F.2d 919 (D.C.Cir.) (denial of injunction affirmed but on ground that appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies), Cert. denied, 356 U.S. 927 (1958). 31 Other courts, although not squarely ruling on the question, nevertheless have intimated that the Commission has the authority to promulgate Rule 2(e) and to discipline professionals who appear before it.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morris Mac SCHWEBEL, Appellant,
v.
Andrew D. ORRICK, Harold C. Patterson, Earl F. Hastings, James C. Sargent, Appellees
14103.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 7, 1958.
251 F.2d 919
Mr. Chester T. Lane, New York City, for appellant. Mr. Alexander B. Hawes, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. David Ferber, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, with whom Mr. Thomas G. Meeker, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, was on the brief, for appellees.
Edgerton, Danaher, Burger.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant asked the District Court to enjoin the Securities and Exchange Commission from conducting a hearing to determine whether appellant should be prevented from continuing to practice before the Commission. Though we think the District Court was right in dismissing the complaint, we think the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedy and the court therefore erred in ruling on the Commission’s authority to disbar attorneys. Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 190 F.2d 605.

Affirmed.