Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,547 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Samuel H. Sloan, Individually & D/B/A Samuel H. Sloan & Co., 535 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,547 Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Samuel H. Sloan, Individually & D/B/A Samuel H. Sloan & Co., 535 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“an order of civil contempt against a party to litigation is not an appealable final order.”
32 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Weston Capital Advisors, Inc. v. P.T. Bank Mutiara, Tbk (ca2, 2016-06-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Weston Capital Advisors, Inc. v. P.T. Bank Mutiara, Tbk
2d Cir. · 2016 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an order of civil contempt against a party to litigation is not an appealable final order.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Gypsum Co v. NGC Stlmnt Trust
5th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
This appellate court should reject the incredible and stay with the judgment of the bankruptcy court. 16 1 693 F.2d 1140 , 1146 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir. 1976)). 22
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Grady v. O'Grady (2×)
S.D. · 1998 · confidence medium
Comm'n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977) (holding: "We see no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County of Suffolk v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
2d Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
It is “peculiarly within the province of the district court ... to determine the meaning of its own order,” Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), and even if we regarded the opinion or judgment as ambiguous, we would not disturb the issuing judge’s interpretation absent a clear abuse of discretion, see id.; SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) County Of Suffolk v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
2d Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
It is "peculiarly within the province of the district court ... to determine the meaning of its own order," Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), and even if we regarded the opinion or judgment as ambiguous, we would not disturb the issuing judge's interpretation absent a clear abuse of discretion, see id.; SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert G. Gough v. Agent Orange Settlement Fund and Agent Orange Administration, Amici Curiae
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d at 77 ; SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (finding "no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order"), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dennis Pappas
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Protective orders that only regulate materials exchanged between the parties incident to litigation, like most discovery orders, are neither final orders, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , see Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Turner & Newall, PLC, 964 F.2d 159, 162-63 (2d Cir.1992); SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976), nor injunctions, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Monarch Life Insurance v. Ropes & Gray
1st Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Comm’n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (same), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977). 13 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 91-02922
11th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
“A long line of precedent holds that once a civil contempt order is purged, no live case or controversy remains for adjudication.” In re Campbell, 628 F.2d 1260, 1261 (9th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (citing cases). 3 Accord United States v. Friedrick, 872 F.2d 779, 779 (6th Cir.1989); Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez, 867 F.2d 1, 21 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Griffin, 816 F.2d 1 , 7 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1987); In re Hunt, 754 F.2d 1290 , 1293-94 (5th Cir.1985); In re Establish Inspection of the Metal Bank of America, 700 F.2d 910, 913 (3d Cir.1983); United States v. Trails End Motel, 657 F.2d 1169 , …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Securities & Exchange Commission v. Electronics Warehouse, Inc.
D. Conn. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Calvo Re *74 ply Memorandum at 3, citing In re Liberatore, 574 F.2d 78 (2d Cir.1978); SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (motion seeking injunction was in the nature of a request for protective order directed to court’s power to control proceedings before it), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manuel AGROMAYOR, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Severo COLBERG, Defendant, Appellant
1st Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 25 , 87 S.Ct. 193, 195 , 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca5 1982
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
"We see no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order." Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977). 31 The judgment of the district court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 1 Anel also assigns error to the wording and timing of portions of the jury charge.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farmhand, Inc. v. Anel Engineering Industries, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
“We see no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order.” Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca3 1979
3rd Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
See Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Marshall, 610 F.2d 1128 , (3d Cir. 1979) (relying on Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 330 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940)); In re Restland Memorial Park, 540 F.2d. 626 , 627 n.3 (3d Cir. 1976); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112 , 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed.2d 774 (1974) 5 See, E. g., SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), Cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977); In re Berry, 521 F.2d 179, 181 (10th Cir.), Cert. denied, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Darmetko v. Boston Housing Authority
Mass. · 1979 · confidence medium
Comm’n v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977); Cromaglass Corp. v. Ferm, 500 F.2d 601, 604 (3d Cir. 1974), and cases cited; Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975, 975 (9th Cir. 1973); Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326, 328 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039 (1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca2 1976
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
The SEC is, therefore, directed to discontinue forthwith its adoption and use of successive ten-day suspension orders to order the suspension of trading in a security for an extended period, i. e. in excess of ten days. 21 It is so ordered. 1 A history of Sloan's litigation with the S.E.C. is set out in this court's opinions in Sloan v. SEC, 535 F.2d 676 , 677 and nn. 2, 3 (2d Cir. 1976), and SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir. 1976) 2 See Sloan v. SEC, 535 F.2d 676, 678 (2d Cir. 1976) 3 Sections 78l (j) and (k) read as follows: "(j) The Commission is authorized by order, as it deems nece…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sloan v. Securities & Exchange Commission
2d Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
A history of Sloan’s litigation with the S.E.C. is set out in this court’s opinions in Sloan v. SEC, 535 F.2d 676 , 677 and nn. 2, 3 (2d Cir. 1976), and SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir. 1976). .
discussed Cited "see" Elaine TRUSKOSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESPN, INC., Defendant-Appellee
2d Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
It is “peculiarly within the province of the district court ... to determine the meaning of its own order,” Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Ruben, 957 F.2d 126, 131 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 70 , 121 L.Ed.2d 36 (1992), and the court’s interpretation of its order will not be disturbed “absent a clear abuse of discretion,” Hastert v. Illinois State Board of Election Commissioners, 28 F.3d 1430, 1438 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 426 , 130 L.Ed.2d 340 (1994); see SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1976) (finding “no basis for substituting our ju…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Wilfred Johnson
2d Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105, 107 , 57 S.Ct. 57, 58 , 81 L.Ed. 67 (1936); see also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam) (“An order of civil contempt against a party to litigation is not an appealable final order.”), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Bartow
N.M. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
App.R. 3(a) (Cum.Supp.1983); NMSA 1978, Crim., Child.Ct., Dom.Rel. & W/C App.R. 203 (Repl.Pamp.1983); see also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977); North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers v. North Carolina Board of Law Examiners, 538 F.2d 547 (4th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marshall v. Whittaker Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e. g., SEC v. Sloan, 535 F.2d 679, 680 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 , 97 S.Ct. 1646 , 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977); In re Berry, 521 F.2d 179, 181 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 928 , 96 S.Ct. 276 , 46 L.Ed.2d 256 (1975); United States v. Watson Chapel Sch.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Samuel H. SLOAN, Individually and D/B/A Samuel H. Sloan & Co., Defendants-Appellants
776, Docket 75-6106.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 10, 1976.
535 F.2d 679
Samuel H. Sloan, pro se., Michael J. Stewart, Asst. Gen. Counsel, S. E. C., Washington, D. C. (Thomas L. Taylor, III, Atty., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Lumbard, Waterman, Feinberg.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Samuel Sloan, a securities broker-dealer who is a frequent litigant in this court, see Sloan v. SEC, 535 F.2d 676, (2d Cir. March 4, 1976), and cases there cited, appeals from a number of orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert J. Ward, J., entered in the course of a continuing lawsuit in which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks to enjoin him from violation of various SEC rules requiring maintenance of proper books and records and making them accessible for inspection by SEC officials. [1] We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The most significant order challenged by Sloan on this appeal, to which he devotes most of his lengthy brief, is an order dated September 3, 1975 holding him in civil contempt for failing to comply with a preliminary injunction granted by Judge Ward on January 17, 1975. [2] The injunction required Sloan, among other things, “to permit immediate examination in an easily accessible place by examiners and other representatives of the Commission of [his] books and records.” An appeal from this injunction was dismissed by this court on January 7, 1976. SEC v. Sloan, Dkt. No. 75-7056. [3]

The order from which Sloan now seeks to appeal is both in form and in substance an order of civil contempt. An order of civil contempt against a party to litigation is not an appealable final order. 9 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 110.13[4]. Moreover, after filing and briefing this appeal, Sloan purged himself of contempt, and on February 4, 1976, Judge Ward entered an order to this effect. Thus, no live controversy remains as to any of the alleged errors in the contempt adjudication, and the appeal from the order of contempt is moot.

[*681] Sloan also argues that the district court’s refusal to dismiss the SEC’s complaint on various grounds, and the grant to the SEC of a protective order as to certain interrogatories, were erroneous. Neither is an appealable final order. 9 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 110.08[1] at n. 33 and cases there cited; UAW v. National Caucus of Labor Committees, 525 F.2d 323, 324 (2d Cir. 1975), and cases there cited. Moreover, Sloan’s notice of appeal does not refer to the protective order, dated August 4, 1975. These aspects of the appeal are therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Another ruling appealed from is Judge Ward’s refusal to hold the SEC in contempt for allegedly violating an oral order restricting the parties’ press releases. Assuming that such an order is appealable at all, we note that the district judge found that the particular press release that was the subject of Sloan’s motion did not violate his order. We see no basis for substituting our judgment for that of the district judge in interpreting his own order.

We also affirm Judge Ward’s refusal to disqualify and disbar counsel for the SEC. While such an order is appealable, Silver Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Gorp., 496 F.2d 800 (2d Cir. 1974) (en banc), we have held that the supervision of attorneys is a matter primarily for the district court, whose findings will be upset only on a showing of abuse of discretion. Hull v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2d Cir. 1975). We see no abuse of discretion here. Sloan also argues that the SEC attorneys should be disqualified because the SEC lacks authority to prosecute actions on its own behalf, and that SEC v. Robert Collier & Co., 76 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1935), which holds that it has such authority, should be overruled. We see no sufficient reason to overturn a persuasive decision by a distinguished bench.

Finally, Sloan appeals from the denial of his motion to enjoin the SEC from “harrassment and annoyance of the defendant herein.” Sloan apparently would have us treat this motion as in effect a complaint or counterclaim charging violations of his constitutional rights, and seeking a preliminary injunction. On that theory, the order denying the injunction would be appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Moreover, such a denial would have required findings of fact and conclusions of law under F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), which were not made by the district court. On the other hand, the papers do not purport to be pleadings, and in the circumstances of this litigation, the district judge apparently considered the motion as one addressed to “the district court’s power to control the proceedings before it,” 9 Moore, Federal Practice 1110.19[1] at 207-OS, and thus not a request for an injunction governed by the Rule and statute cited above. We agree that the motion here was more in the nature of a request for a protective order. The order denying it is therefore interlocutory and non-appealable.

Accordingly, as indicated above, the appeal is dismissed as to certain of the rulings appealed from; in all other respects, the rulings of the district court are affirmed.

1

. This is not the first such action taken by the SEC against Sloan. See SEC v. Sloan, 369 F.Supp. 996 (S.D.N.Y.1974), appeal dismissed, Dkt. No. 74-1436 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 1976.)

2

. The September 3 order adjudged Sloan in civil contempt and gave him 20 days to purge himself. When he did not, a further order of civil contempt was entered on September 26, 1975 ordering Sloan’s arrest.

3

. We cited United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1345 n. 33 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975).