Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,588 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stephen Murphy.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,588 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stephen Murphy Anchor | green | “once the sec introduces evidence that a defendant has violated the registration provisions, the defendant then has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to an exemption.” | 5 |
| 2 | Kay Hollinger Richard Llewelyn Jones Edward E. Nissen Judy D'Arcy K-Judy, Ltd. v. Titan Capital Corp. Emil Wilkowski Painter Financial Group, Ltd. | green | “a highly unreasonable omission, involving not merely simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and which presents a danger of misleading buyers or sellers that is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the …” | 4 |
| 3 | Gebhart v. Securities & Exchange Commission | green | “although we may consider the objective unreasonableness of the defendant's conduct to raise an inference of scienter, the ultimate question is whether the defendant knew his or her statements were false, or was consciously reckless as to their truth or falsity.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.