green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joseph H. Fleischli
See United States v. Markley, 567 F.2d 523, 527-28 (1st Cir.1977), ce rt. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978); United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 868 , 93 S.Ct. 167 , 34 L.Ed.2d 118 (1972); United States v. Morningstar, 456 F.2d 278, 281 (4th Cir.1972), ce rt. denied, 409 U.S. 896 , 93 S.Ct. 135 , 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Waters v. International Precious Metals Corp.
See Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 559 F.2d 1357, 1361 (8th Cir.1977), cert. den. 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978) (court recognized that loss causation was not based on the price at which the plaintiff bought but that he was induced to buy at all); see also Clayton, 794 F.2d 573 (where plaintiff initiated the trades in his commodities account with defendants, court found that defendants were nevertheless liable because plaintiffs continued participation in trading was induced by misrepresentations by the defendants about the risk of loss therefrom); Rinfret, Inc.…
discussed
Cited "see"
Trimed, Inc. v. Sherwood Medical Co.
See Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1362 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978) (jury’s failure to follow the trial court’s erroneous instruction is not sufficient ground for a new trial if it is otherwise clear that the verdict is just), citing Lazier Gas Engine Co. v. Du Bois, 130 F. 834 (3rd Cir.1904) (“where the court is convinced and is able to demonstrate that the verdict on the whole was a just one, and that certain instructions as to the measure of damages given by the court to the jury, and apparently disregarded by …
discussed
Cited "see"
Terry James and Juha Kokko v. Raymond H. Meinke
See Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360-61 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978); Foster v. Financial Technology Inc., 517 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1975); Madigan, Inc. v. Goodman, 498 F.2d 233, 238-39 (7th Cir.1974); Zeller v. Bogue Electric Manufacturing Corp., 476 F.2d 795, 801-03 (2d Cir.1973); deHaas v. Empire Petroleum Co., 435 F.2d 1223, 1228-29 (10th Cir.1970); Bowman & Bourdon, Inc. v. Rohr, 296 F.Supp. 847, 852 , (D.Mass.), aff'd, 417 F.2d 780 (1st Cir.1969).
cited
Cited "see"
Boeck v. Logan 480 Dairy Farm
See Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Willard Crimm v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation
“Where the instructions, considered as a whole, adequately and sufficiently state the generally applicable law, the fact that the instructions are technically imperfect or are not a model of clarity does not render the charge erroneous.” Tribble v. Westinghouse, 669 F.2d at 1197 ; see Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicholaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1362 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,613 George F. Nye, Gerald J. Sterner, and Thomas E. Mulcahy, Individually and as a Joint Venture Doing Business in the Name of Gerald J. Sterner, Cross-Appellants v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Richard Newham, and Harold Covlin, Cross-Appellees. George F. Nye, Gerald J. Sterner, Thomas E. Mulcahy, Individually and as a Joint Venture Doing Business in the Name of Gerald J. Sterner v. Richard Newham, George F. Nye, Gerald J. Sterner, Thomas E. Mulcahy, Individually and as a Joint Venture Doing Business in the Name of Gerald J. Sterner v. Blyth Eastman Dillon and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Harold Covlin
See n.7, Supra. 45 It is true that in fashioning an appropriate damage measure in a Rule 10b-5 action, "(the Court's) function is to fashion the remedy best suited to the harm." Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nye v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co.
See n.7, supra. It is true that in fashioning an appropriate damage measure in a Rule 10b-5 action, “[the Court’s] function is to fashion the remedy best suited to the harm.” Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Larry J. Copus
United States v. Momingstar, 456 F.2d 278 , 280 (4th Cir.) (stating in dictum that devices identified in § 5845(f)(1) “are covered regardless of their intended use”), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896 , 93 S.Ct. 135 , 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972); see also United States v. Markley, 567 F.2d 523, 527 (1st Cir.1977) (concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding *273 that the home-made incendiary devices fell within the provisions of § 5845(f)(1) “regardless of their intended purpose”), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Drake v. Letterman Transaction Services
See Huddleston, 640 F.2d at 554 ; see also Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,912 in Re Letterman Brothers Energy Securities Litigation. Donald A. Drake v. Letterman Transaction Services, Letterman Brothers Energy Program v. Banctexas Dallas, N.A., Richard J. Stuart v. Letterman Brothers Energy, Defendants-Third Party v. Banctexas Dallas, N.A., Third Party
See Huddleston, 640 F.2d at 554 ; see also Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978). 23 A bank, unless it is acting as a broker or in a situation closely analogous to that of a broker, is not within the category of parties against whom recissional damages may be awarded.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maryville Academy v. Loeb Rhoades & Co., Inc.
See, e.g., Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978) (defendant liable for such damages as naturally and proximately result from the fraud); Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 418 F.2d 1276, 1291 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 913 , 25 L.Ed.2d 93 (1970) (damages must be a proximate result of misleading statements); Franklin Life Instrument Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 451 F.Supp. 602, 607-08 (S.D.Ill.1978) aff’d, 598 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 900 , …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Bolton Arrington
See also United States v. Vice, 562 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978) (citing Fryer with implicit approval).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Morris v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
See also Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1363 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,895 Margaret Morris v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., and Kingsley O. Wright, Sr., Mary A. Braun v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Kingsley O. Wright, and Theodore Menas
See also Garnatz v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., 559 F.2d 1357, 1363 (8th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951 , 98 S.Ct. 1578 , 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
v.
Garnatz
v.
Garnatz
No. 77-1043.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 3, 1978.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.