15 U.S.C. § 10
Bringing in additional parties
Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 9 of this title may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Nat'l City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573 (1948).
United States v. Nat'l City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573 (1948). “§ 5 (1890), 15 U.S.C. § 10 (1894), 15 U.S.C. § 25 (1914).”
Popescu v. Apple Inc., 1 Cal. App. 5th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” Popescu therefore alleged independently wrongful conduct by Apple, including (1) a violation of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 10 ); (2) a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus.”
Mordechai Gurary v. Isaac Winehouse & Isaac Winehouse, Doing Bus. as Wall & Broad Equities, Nu-Tech Bio-Med, Inc., 235 F.3d 792 (2d Cir. 2000). “Nor could Gurary’s claim be supported by any colorable argument for a change in existing law.”
Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 765 (N.D. Tex. 2008). “Insulating such a criminal enterprise from liability, when, for instance, the victim is unable to finance long-distance litigation, is not consistent with RICO’s purpose.”
Berk v. Ascott Inv. Corp., 759 F. Supp. 245 (E.D. Pa. 1991). “1-401 and 1-501 with 15 U.S.C. § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 discussed supra), as well as common law fraud and conspiracy.”
Great Lakes Chem. Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 96 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Del. 2000). “Penturejli brought suit under 15 U.S.C. § 10 (b). The district court found that Penturelli exercised managerial control over the mining operations, and dismissed the complaint because Penturelli was not a sufficiently passive investor under the Howey test.”
Tricontinental Indus. Ltd. v. Anixter, 215 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “1 Alan Anixter, Scott Anix-ter, Carl Putnam and Donald Welchko (the “individual defendants”) move to dismiss the remaining claims against them, which arise under 15 U.S.C. §§ 10 (b) and 20(a), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Illinois law.”
Tricontinental Indus., Ltd. v. Anixter, 184 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “PwC moves to dismiss the claims against it, which arise under 15 U.S.C. § 10 (b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as Illinois law.”
Lamb v. Smith & Wamsley PLLC (D. Ariz. 2024). “6 Further, even if the Court were to assume Lamb was attempting to state a securities 7 violation based on the Complaint referring to a "Statute Simple Security Instrument," Lamb's 8 Complaint fails to include what type of security violation may have occurred and fails to 9…”
Teed v. Chen (N.D. Cal. 2022). “In response, Teed unsuccessfully attempts to 13 convert his allegation in the Complaint (Chen’s failure to file a registration statement with 14 the SEC) into a new allegation of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 10 (b) and 17 15 C.F.R. § 240 .”
Shat Acres Higland Cattle, LLC v. Am. Highland Cattle Ass'n (D. Colo. 2023). “§ 4 , which empowers the United States to bring actions in equity to prevent antitrust violations); 15 U.S.C. § 10 (same in proceedings under 15 U.”
Aaron Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P. (6th Cir. 2026). “”); 15 U.S.C. § 10 (same). In interpreting the “ends of justice require” language, the Supreme Court determined that § 5 conferred jurisdiction over “nonresident defendants” because the district court had traditional personal jurisdiction over one defendant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.