Cases pin-citing Gustafson · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Gustafson

Cases pin-citing Gustafson

Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.  ·  1995  ·  126 pinpoint citations from 43 cases, 29 distinct passages.

Digilytic International FZE v. Alchemy Finance, Inc.  ·  2024-08-30  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 513 U.S. at 561
“�e Courts of Appeals agree that the phrase ‘oral communication’ is restricted to oral communications that relate to a prospectus.”
Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC  ·  2018-07-19  ·  E.D. Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[T]he Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant."
Gaynor v. Miller  ·  2017-08-11  ·  E.D. Tennessee  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Section. 12(a)(2) applies only to purchases made through initial offerings and not to aftermarket trading.”
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Hugler  ·  2017-02-08  ·  N.D. Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[njormal rules of statutory construction [dictate] that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”
Lifeng Wang v. Leon Rodriguez  ·  2016-07-27  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[T]he Court will avoid a reading [of a statute] which renders some words altogether redundant.”
New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc.  ·  2016-04-19  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”
New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc.  ·  2015-09-16  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”
United States v. Richter  ·  2015-07-31  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.  ·  2015-06-25  ·  Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[T]he Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant"
Luther Scott, Jr. v. Tom Schedler  ·  2014-11-05  ·  Fifth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[W]e adopt the premise that [a] term should be construed, if possible, to give it a consistent meaning throughout the Act.”
Joffe v. Google, Inc.  ·  2013-09-10  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving ‘unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.’ ”
Benjamin Joffe v. Google Inc.  ·  2013-09-10  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 131 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“‘[A] word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving ‘unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.’ ”
United States v. Vargas-Cordon  ·  2013-08-12  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”
National Labor Relations Board v. New Vista Nursing & Rehabilitation  ·  2013-05-16  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps. This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words”
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporation  ·  2013-01-23  ·  Third Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[T]he Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant.”
Alger v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Alger)  ·  2012-01-24  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps.”
United States v. Trustees of Boston College  ·  2011-12-16  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[I]dentical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”
Lopez v. Terrell  ·  2011-07-13  ·  Second Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[I]dentical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning."
Malack v. BDO Seidman, LLP  ·  2010-08-16  ·  Third Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The primary innovation of the 1933 Act was the creation of federal duties—for the most part, registration and disclosure obligations—in connection with public offerings.”
In Re Price  ·  2009-04-13  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis).”
United States v. Upton  ·  2009-03-05  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The normal rule of statutory construction [is] that identical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning.”
In Re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation  ·  2008-12-01  ·  C.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[T]he term ‘prospectus’ refers to a document soliciting the public to acquire securities.”
Kislev Partners, L.P. v. United States  ·  2008-08-13  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“Where the identical word or phrase is used more than once in the same act, there is a presumption that it has the same meaning throughout.”
Miller v. Thane International, Inc.  ·  2008-03-18  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“It is understandable that Congress would provide [securities] buyers with a right to rescind, without proof of fraud.... ”
United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo  ·  2008-02-15  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[H]ad Congress [so] intended . . ., it presumably would have drafted the statute differently. . . ."
Miller v. Thane International, Inc.  ·  2007-11-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“It is understandable that Congress would provide [securities] buyers with a right to rescind, without proof of fraud.... ”
Guerrero v. RJM ACQUISITIONS LLC  ·  2007-08-23  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
"[T]he normal rule of statutory construction [is] that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."
Guerrero v. Rjm Acquisitions  ·  2007-08-22  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  pin 513 U.S. at 561
“[T]he normal rule of statutory con- struction [is] that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”
Gallo v. United States  ·  2007-05-29  ·  Federal Claims  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“In seeking to interpret the term ‘prospectus,’ we adopt the premise that the term should be construed, if possible, to give it a consistent meaning throughout the Act. That principle follows from our duty to construe statutes, not isolated provisions.”
United States v. Taylor  ·  2007-04-05  ·  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“we adopt the premise that [a] term should be construed, if possible, to give it a consistent meaning throughout”
Wright v. Jeckle  ·  2006-10-12  ·  Washington Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of noscitur a sociis)”
Field v. Google Inc.  ·  2006-01-19  ·  D. Nevada  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning”
Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency  ·  2004-09-01  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[Identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”
In Re Collins  ·  2002-07-03  ·  M.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] term should be construed, if possible, to give it a consistent meaning throughout the Act.”
Patterson v. Chrysler Financial Co. (In Re Patterson)  ·  2001-05-24  ·  E.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“the Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”
Schwab v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (In Re Derienzo)  ·  2000-10-18  ·  M.D. Pennsylvania  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[A] term should be construed, if possible, to give it a consistent meaning throughout the Act”
Robert Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc.  ·  2000-10-04  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“the Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”
In Re American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Securities Litigation  ·  2000-04-06  ·  S.D. New York  ·  pin 115 S. Ct. at 1061
“Following Gustafson ... plaintiffs have standing under Section 12(a)(2) only if they purchased their securities in a public offering rather than in the secondary market.”
In Re: Air Crash Off Long Island, New York, on July 17, 1996  ·  2000-03-29  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“[T]he Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant.”
Homeside Lending, Inc. v. Denny (In Re Denny)  ·  1999-12-29  ·  D. Maryland  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“the Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”
Milman v. Box Hill Systems Corp.  ·  1999-08-17  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“The intent of Congress and the design of the statute require that § 12 [ (a) ] (2) liability be limited to public offerings”
In Re David Louis Cohn, Debtor. Insurance Company of North America v. David Louis Cohn  ·  1995-05-10  ·  Third Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 115 L. Ed. 2d at 1
“the Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”
Page 1 of 3   Next →