Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Merhav Ampal Group, Ltd. v. Merhav (M.N.F.) Ltd. (In re Ampal-American Israel Corp.)
The holding affirmed the axiom that the unclean hands defense is a defense in a securities action if the application of the doctrine “will better promote the objectives of the securities laws by increasing protection afforded to the investing public.” Id.; accord Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 474 (5th Cir.) (“While the defense of ‘unclean hands’ is available in securities actions ... its application rests within the sound discretion of the District Court.”), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 290 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Louis P. Singer, as Successor in Interest to Troster, Singer & Co., Cross-Appellant v. Olympia Brewing Company, Cross-Appellee
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 479 (5th Cir.) (federal law determines the availability of prejudgment interest), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); Drachman v. Harvey, 453 F.2d 722, 726-27 (2d Cir.1971) (federal law determines the definition of a “shareholder” entitled to bring suit), rev’d on other grounds in rehearing in banc, 453 F.2d 736 (2d Cir.1972); Baumel v. Rosen, 412 F.2d 571, 575 (4th Cir.1969) (proper measure of damages is determined by federal law), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1037 , 90 S.Ct. 688 , 24 L.Ed.2d 681 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pelletier v. Stuart-James Co.
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); see also Harris v. American Inv.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,180, 7 Ucc rep.serv.2d 1607 Ronald O. Pelletier and Ronald O. Pelletier D/B/A Rop Investments, Plaintiffs v. Stuart-James Company, Inc.
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); see also Harris v. American Inv.
discussed
Cited "see"
King v. Edwards
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
Farber v. Servan Land Co.
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, All F.2d 467, 477 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); Claman v. Robertson, 164 Ohio St. 61 , 128 N.E.2d 429 (1955) (ratifying majority must be disinterested); 13 Fletcher § 5882; 19 Am.Jur Corporations § 1248 at 656 (1965); 19 C.J.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Farber v. Servan Land Company
(2×)
See Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 477 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); Claman v. Robertson, 164 Ohio St. 61 , 128 N.E.2d 429 (1955) (ratifying majority must be disinterested); 13 Fletcher § 5882; 19 Am.Jur Corporations § 1248 at 656 (1965); 19 C.J.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,891 Thomas J. Byrnes and Francis R. Santangelo v. Faulkner, Dawkins & Sullivan and Singer & MacKie Inc., Faulkner, Dawkins & Sullivan, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Thomas J. Byrnes and Francis R. Santangelo, Counterclaim-Defendants, and Tobey & Kirk, Counterclaim-Defendant-Appellee
(2×)
See Abrahamson v. Fleschner, 392 F.Supp. 740, 746-47 (S.D.N.Y.1975). 9 See also Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 478 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973). 22 Nor are the damage claims recoverable under the allegedly pendent state claim for common law fraud or a violation of New York General Business Law § 352-c.
discussed
Cited "see"
Byrnes v. Faulkner, Dawkins & Sullivan
(2×)
See Abrahamson v. Fleschner, 392 F.Supp. 740, 746-47 (S.D.N.Y.1975). 9 See also Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 478 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 287 , 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973).
Frank
v.
Wolf
v.
Wolf
No. 73-197.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 23, 1973.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.