Securities Act violation (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Securities Act violation in Texas

6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Texas Adjutant General's Office v. Michele Ngakouegreen
tex · 2013 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Tex. Adjutant Gen.’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350 , 356–57 (Tex. 2013) (stating that claim could have been brought under Tort Claims Act if “plaintiff had a tort claim to assert against the government”); Williams v. Nealon, 394 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (noting that “any tort action” is one that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act).

2015See Tex. Adjutant Gen.’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350, 356-57 (Tex.2013) (stating that claim could have been brought under Tort Claims Act if “plaintiff had a tort claim to assert against the government”); Williams v. Nealon, 394 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (noting that “any tort action” is one that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act).

22
Kelemen v. Elliottgreen
texapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

22
Franka v. Velasquezgreen
tex · 2011 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

22
Harry Williams v. William H. Nealon, M.D., and Eric M. Walser, M.D.green
texapp · 2012 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Tex. Adjutant Gen.’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350 , 356–57 (Tex. 2013) (stating that claim could have been brought under Tort Claims Act if “plaintiff had a tort claim to assert against the government”); Williams v. Nealon, 394 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (noting that “any tort action” is one that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act).

2015See Tex. Adjutant Gen.’s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350, 356-57 (Tex.2013) (stating that claim could have been brought under Tort Claims Act if “plaintiff had a tort claim to assert against the government”); Williams v. Nealon, 394 S.W.3d 9, 11 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (noting that “any tort action” is one that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act).

22
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylorgreen
tex · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 697, 701 . (stating that ambiguity precludes finding of unmistakable legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity and requiring that waiver be unambiguous and “beyond doubt”). ' • Because a violation of the Securities Act “sounds in tort” and the four Taylor factors do not support the conclusion that the Legislature waived immunity under the statute, we conclude that a violation of the Securities Act is a claim that “could have been brought under [the Tort.

11
Cook v. Stategreen
texapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Deputy Corey Alexander and Sergeant Jimmie Cook v. April Walker green
tex · 2014
2 sentences

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

2015Alexander, 435 S.W.3d at 792 ; Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381 (holding that claim brought “under another statute that independently waives immunity” is not subject to Section 101.106(f) dismissal); Kelemen v. Elliott, 260 S.W.3d 518, 522 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (holding that alleged violations of Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act were not claims that could have been brought under Tort Claims Act because each contained independent waiver of immunity); Hamilton v. Pechacek, No. 02-12-00383-CV, 2014 WL 1096018 , at *5 n. 7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar.

22015–2015
Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Ryder Scott Co. green
texapp · 2007
1 sentence

2015Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Ryder Scott Co. (App. 1 Dist. 2006) 212 S.W.3d 522 , rehearing overruled, review denied, on remand 2009 WL 8620816 .

12015–2015
Cook v. State green
texcrimapp · 1992
2 sentences

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

12012–2012
Crain v. State green
texcrimapp · 1913
2 sentences

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

2012PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.03 (West 2011); Crain v. State, 153 S.W. 155 (1913) (―Ignorance of the law excuses no one.‖). 10 Having said this, we point out a sister court found a Securities Act violation ―is not a ‗nature of the conduct‘ offense.‖ Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 638 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref’d, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim.

12012–2012
McQueen v. State green
texcrimapp · 1989
2 sentences

2012Thus, a violation of the Securities Act is an offense dealing with the ‗circumstances surrounding the conduct,‘ and the culpable mental state of ‗knowingly‘ must apply to those surrounding circumstances.‖ Id. at 638–39 (citing McQueen, 781 S.W.2d at 603 ).

2012Thus, a violation of the Securities Act is an offense dealing with the ‗circumstances surrounding the conduct,‘ and the culpable mental state of ‗knowingly‘ must apply to those surrounding circumstances.‖ Id. at 638–39 (citing McQueen, 781 S.W.2d at 603 ).

12012–2012
Bridwell v. State green
texcrimapp · 1991
2 sentences

1991In Bridwell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.1988), aff’d, 804 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the Dallas court of appeals had before it an alleged Securities Act violation involving similar conduct, i.e., a failure to disclose to prospective investors the fact that the security seller had used previous investor funds for purposes other than those for which the funds were invested.

1991In Bridwell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.1988), aff’d, 804 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the Dallas court of appeals had before it an alleged Securities Act violation involving similar conduct, i.e., a failure to disclose to prospective investors the fact that the security seller had used previous investor funds for purposes other than those for which the funds were invested.

11991–1991
Bridwell v. State green
texapp · 1988
2 sentences

1991In Bridwell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.1988), aff’d, 804 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the Dallas court of appeals had before it an alleged Securities Act violation involving similar conduct, i.e., a failure to disclose to prospective investors the fact that the security seller had used previous investor funds for purposes other than those for which the funds were invested.

1991In Bridwell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.1988), aff’d, 804 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), the Dallas court of appeals had before it an alleged Securities Act violation involving similar conduct, i.e., a failure to disclose to prospective investors the fact that the security seller had used previous investor funds for purposes other than those for which the funds were invested.

11991–1991
Grosso v. United States green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

11988–1988
Marchetti v. United States green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

11988–1988
Leary v. United States green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

1988Bridwell relies upon Marchetti v. State, 390 U.S. 39 , 88 S.Ct. 697 , 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968); and Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 , 89 S.Ct. 1532 , 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969) to support his argument that his Fifth Amendment rights are violated by the Securities Act requirement that he disclose information concerning his prior dealings with investors.

11988–1988

Where else courts name it

TX 6 (1988–2015) NY 6 (1970–2024) WA 2 (2019–2024) IN 2 (2007–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check