green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 ·
…no right of contribution accrues ... until have paid to the plaintiff the entire amount to which plaintiff is entitled
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,374, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 296 Helen Smith v. James F. Mulvaney, William B. Conneley, Harold S. Jurgensen, Floyd A. Blower, William F. Croddy, Douglas R. Giddings, James K. Guthrie, Ernest W. Hahn, Clement L. Hirsch, Arthur H. Kaplan, C. Hugh Friedman, and Hollis Roberts
See Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330, 1370-71 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976); Herzfeld v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, 540 F.2d 27, 39 (2d Cir.1976); Globus, Inc., 318 F.Supp. at 958 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Mulvaney
See Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330, 1370-71 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976); Herzfeld v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, 540 F.2d 27, 39 (2d Cir.1976); Globus, Inc., 318 F.Supp. at 958 .
cited
Cited "see"
Chilcote v. Von Der Ahe Van Lines
Accord, Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330, 1370 (D.Md. 1975), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Professional Beauty Supply, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. National Beauty Supply, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. La Maur Inc.
(2×)
See Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330, 1370-71 (D.Md.1975), Aff'd 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1976); W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Asdar Group v. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
See also Wassel v. Eglowsky, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976) (defendants in action under § 12(1) of 1933 Act had claim for contribution against parties not sued by original plaintiff, but “[n]o right of contribution accrues ... until [the defendants in the original § 12(1) action] have paid to [the plaintiff] the entire amount to which [plaintiff] is entitled”), overruled on other grounds, Baker, Watts & Co. v. Miles & Stockbridge, 876 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir.1989) (en banc) (holding that no right to contribution existed under § 12 of the 1933 Act).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
No. 95-55739
See also Wassel v. Eglowsky, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976) (defendants in action under § 12(1) of 1933 Act had claim for contribution against parties not sued by original plaintiff, but "[n]o right of contribution accrues ... until [the defendants in the original § 12(1) action] have paid to [the plaintiff] the entire amount to which [plaintiff] is entitled"), overruled on other grounds, Baker, Watts & Co. v. Miles & Stockbridge, 876 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir.1989) (en banc) (holding that no right to contribution existed under § 12 of the 1933 Act).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Muriel B. Seymour and David Seymour, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
Compare Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330, 1367 (D.Md.1975), aff’d 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976), with Johnson v. Rogers, 621 F.2d 300 , 304 n. 6 (8th Cir.1980); see generally C.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cunningham v. Quaker Oats Co.
See, e.g., Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 , 1335 n. 1 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1976) (per curiam); 6 C.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
See, e. g., Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 (D.Md.1975), aff'd, 542 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1976); B & B Investment Club v. Kleinert’s, Inc., 391 F.Supp. 720 (E.D.Pa.1975); Gould v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., 387 F.Supp. 163 (D.Del.1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bernard
v.
WASSEL and Sevy Wassel, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward M. EGLOWSKY, Stephen H. Stillerman, Appellants, v. Arnold GOLDMAN, and Central Trust Company, Defendants-Appellees
v.
WASSEL and Sevy Wassel, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Edward M. EGLOWSKY, Stephen H. Stillerman, Appellants, v. Arnold GOLDMAN, and Central Trust Company, Defendants-Appellees
75-2123.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Oct 19, 1976.
Edward M. Eglowsky (Stephen H. Stiller-man, on brief), pro se., Francis S. Brocato, Baltimore, Md., for appellees Bernard V. and Sevy Wassel., Robert B. Haldeman, Baltimore, Md. (Cleaveland D. Miller, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee Central Trust Co., Arnold Goldman, pro se.
Winter, Craven, Field.
Cited by 31 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
In an exhaustive opinion, the district judge granted judgment to plaintiffs Bernard V. Wassel and Sevy Wassel against defendants Edward M. Eglowsky and Stephen H. Stillerman, and he gave Eglowsky and Stillerman judgment for contribution against Arnold Goldman, a third-party defendant, exonerating Central Trust Company, another third-party defendant. Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 (D.Md.1975). Plaintiffs’ recovery was grounded upon defendants’ violation of § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 777(1) (selling unregistered securities).
Defendants Eglowsky and Stiller-man appeal, assigning numerous grounds for reversal. We find none of them meritorious, and we affirm on the opinion of the district court, adopting it as our own with regard to the violation of § 12(1) of the Act and defendants’ right to contribution from Goldman.
AFFIRMED.