Cluster 1671298
green
· 106 citation events
across 34 courts.
Showing the 33 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Softpoint, Inc. (1997)
See Wolfson, 405 F.2d at 783-84 (construing Section 5(a)(1) to prohibit use of the mails to send stock offers, to transmit sales literature, to ship securities certificates after sale, to remit the proceeds to the seller, to send buyers’ confirmation slips, and to effect more tangential communications) (citing United States v. Kane, 243 F.Supp. 746, 750 (S.D.N.Y.1965); SEC v. Hasho, 784 F.Supp. 1059, 1106 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (ruling that telephone sales calls to securities custo…
holding that intrastate telephone calls were sufficient to implicate the Section 5(a)(1) prohibition because the “use of a telephone is the use of a means of interstate communication” regardless of the intrastate character of the call
green
Pinter v. Dahl (1988)
The substantial-factor test reflects a conviction that § 12 liability “must lie somewhere between the narrow view, which holds only the parties to the sale, and the too-liberal view which would hold all who remotely participated in the events leading up to the transaction.” Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F. Supp. 59, 65 (ND Ohio 1964).
green
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System (1988)
This substantial factor-proximate cause approach originated in Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F. Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.
green
Blue Sky L. Rep. P 72,221, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,035 J. Don Foster, an Individual v. Jesup and Lamont Securi… (1985)
Liability of secondary participants has been held to depend on whether "the injury to the plaintiff flow[ed] directly and proximately from the [defendant's] actions." Hill York Corp. v. American International Franchises, Inc., 448 F.2d 680, 693 (5th Cir.1971) (quoting Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964)).
green
Foster v. Jesup & Lamont Securities Co. (1985)
Liability of secondary participants has been held to depend on whether “the injury to the plaintiff flow[ed] directly and proximately from the [defendant’s] actions.” Hill York Corp. v. American International Franchises, Inc., 448 F.2d 680, 693 (5th Cir.1971) (quoting Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964)).
green
In Re Fortune Systems Securities Litigation (1984)
The court then held that the proper test for seller liability, stated in terms of cause and effect, is: “[D]id the injury to the plaintiff flow directly and proximately from the actions of this particular defendant?” Id. at 693 , citing Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
Lewis v. Walston & Co., Inc., 487 F.2d 617, 621-22 (5th Cir. 1973); Hill York Corp. v. American International Franchises, Inc., 448 F.2d 680, 692-93 (5th Cir. 1970); Nicewarner v. Bleavins, 244 F.Supp. 261, 266 (D.Colo.1965); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
green
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,639 Cal Swenson and Carolyn Swenson v. Richard and Ralph Engelstad (1980)
Declining to read § 12(1) as requiring privity between plaintiff and defendant, we held that the appropriate inquiry is whether “ ‘the injury to the plaintiff flow[ed] directly and proximately from the actions of this particular defendant.’ ” 448 F.2d at 693 (citing Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.
The court held that the proper test to be applied was one of proximate cause: the line of demarcation must be drawn in terms of cause and effect: To borrow a phrase from the law of negligence, did the injury to the plaintiff flow directly and proximately from the actions of this particular defendant? 448 F.2d at 693 , quoting Lennerth v. Men-denhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964). 5 In the particular fact situation presented by Hill York, the following factors persuaded…
green
Sandusky Land, Ltd. v. Uniplan Groups, Inc. (1975)
Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
green
Wassel v. Eglowsky (1975)
See Kerbs v. Fall River Industries, Inc., 502 F.2d 731, 737-38 (10th Cir. 1974); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 727-28 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951 , 88 S.Ct. 1043 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
green
Hidell v. International Diversified Investments (1975)
B 15 Compare Burke v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 438 F.2d 978, 979 (9th Cir. 1971); Arber v. Essex Wire Corp., 342 F.Supp. 1162, 1163-1164 (N.D.Ohio 1971); and Rosen v. Albern Color Research, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 473, 475-476 (E.D.Pa.1963), holding that local phone calls are inadequate, with Lawrence v. S.E.C., 398 F.2d 276 , 279 n. 2 (1st Cir. 1968); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 727 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951 , 88 S.Ct. 1043 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 ; Heyman v. H…
green
Hidell v. International Diversified Investments (1975)
Compare Burke v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., 438 F.2d 978, 979 (9th Cir. 1971); Arber v. Essex Wire Corp., 342 F.Supp. 1162, 1163-1164 (N.D.Ohio 1971); and Rosen v. Albern Color Research, Inc., 218 F.Supp. 473, 475-476 (E.D.Pa.1963), holding that local phone calls are inadequate, with Lawrence v. S.E.C., 398 F.2d 276 , 279 n. 2 (1st Cir. 1968); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 727 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951 , 88 S.Ct. 1043 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 ; Heyman v. Heyman…
green
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,788 Jack Kerbs v. Fall River Industries, Inc., a Colorado Corporation (1974)
Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 727 (8th Cir. 1967); Ingraffia v. Belle Meade Hospital, Inc., 319 F.Supp. 537, 538 (E.D.La. 1970); Childs v. RIC Group, 331 F.Supp. 1078, 1082 (N.D.Ga.1970), aff’d, 447 F.2d 1407 (5th Cir. 1971); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964); Nemitz v. Cunny, 221 F.Supp. 571, 575 (N.D.Ill.1963).
WagnerCo, therefore, agreed to pay at maturity and acknowledged the obligation in writing 4 See generally, Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio, 1964) 5 15 U.S.C. 77b(1) 'The term 'security' means any . . . investment contract . . ..' 6 15 U.S.C. 77c(a) '. . .
green
Strom v. Black (1974)
The evidence amply demonstrates that appellants both participated in and induced the unlawful sale of securities. 2 “The hunter who seduces the prey and leads it to the trap he has set is no less guilty than the hunter whose hand springs the snare.” Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio, 1964).
green
SAFEWAY PORTLAND EMP. FED. CR. U. v. CH Wagner & Co. (1971)
Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio, 1964).
green
Arber v. Essex Wire Corporation (1971)
Lawrence v. SEC, 398 F.2d 276 , 279 n.2 (1st Cir. 1968); Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 727-728 (8th Cir. 1967); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964); Nemitz v. Cunny, 221 F.Supp. 571, 575 (N.D.Ill.1963).
green
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,474 Morton Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc. And Ellias C. Hoppenfeld, Blair & Co.,… (1970)
United States v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 691 (S.D.N.Y.1953); Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., 287 F.Supp. 766, 775 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Rosenberg v. Globe Aircraft Corp., 80 F.Supp. 123 (E.D.Pa.1948); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 62 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
green
Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc. (1969)
United States v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 691 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., 287 F.Supp. 766, 775 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Rosenberg v. Globe Aircraft Corp., 80 F.Supp. 123 (E.D.Pa.1948); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 62 (N.D.
Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 951 , 88 S.Ct. 1043 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964) ; Nemitz v. Cunny, 221 F.Supp. 571, 575 (N.D.Ill.1963). 3 .
See, e. g., Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 95 , 194 F.2d 145, 148-149 (1951); Beeler v. United States, 338 F.2d 687, 689 (3d Cir. 1964); Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 61-63 (N.D.Ohio 1964).
green
United States v. Kane (1965)
B.g., Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964). 10 .
green
Bernard A. Schlifke and Harvey Kallick, D/B/A K & S Investments Co., a Partnership v. Seafirst Corp. And Seat… (1989)
See Davis v. AVCO Financial Services, Inc., 739 F.2d 1057 , 1065 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1005 , 105 S.Ct. 1359 , 84 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) (“But for the presence of the defendant ... in the negotiations preceding the sale, could the sale have been consummated?” (quoting Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964))); Croy v. Campbell, 624 F.2d 709, 713 (5th Cir.1980).
See Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio 1964). 34 .
See generally, Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 63 (N.D.Ohio, 1964). . 15 U.S.C. § 77b (1) “The term ‘security’ means any . . . investment contract. tf . 15 U.S.C. § 77c (a) “ . . . [T]he provisions . . . shall not apply to . . . (2) ... any security issued or guaranteed by any bank. ...” .
green
In Re Caesars Palace Securities Litigation (1973)
See Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964); Wall v. Wagner, supra; cf. Nicewarner v. Bleavins, 244 F.Supp. 261, 266 (D.Colo.1965); Wonneman v. Stratford Securities Co., CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rep. ¶ 91,034 at 93,459-60 (S.D.N.Y.1961).
green
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,507 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Continental Tobacco Company of South Carolin… (1972)
See Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D., Ohio, 1964); III Loss, Securities Regulation 1693 (2nd ed. 1961); Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., supra. The Commission proved all three elements.
green
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman (1971)
See Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964); III Loss, Securities Regulation 1693 (2d ed. 1961).
green
In Re Wicat Securities Litigation (1984)
See also Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59, 65 (N.D.Ohio 1964) (initially articulating the “participation” test for § 12(2) liability).
initially articulating the “participation” test for § 12(2) liability
green
duPont v. Wyly (1973)
See e. g., Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964); Hill York Corp. v. American International Franchises, Inc., 448 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1971) ; In re Caesars Palace Securities Litigation, CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rep. ¶ 94,005 (E.D.Pa.1973). .
green
Lynn v. Caraway (1966)
See also Lennerth v. Mendenhall, 234 F.Supp. 59 (N.D.Ohio 1964).