15 U.S.C. § 77i
Court review of orders
1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–181 substituted “court of appeals” for “Circuit Court of Appeals”, “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such Court” for “Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, by filing in such court”, and “section 1254 of title 28” for “sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C., title 28, secs. 346 and 347)”.
1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–791, in second sentence, substituted “transmitted by the clerk of the court to” for “served upon”, struck out “certify and” before “file in the court”, struck out “a transcript of” after “file in the court”, and inserted “as provided in section 2112 of title 28”.
For transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 283
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: Bandimere v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission
Bandimere v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission (2016)
“-2- Exercising jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) and 78y(a)(1), we grant Mr.”
Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel (1991)
“51 Counts three, four, and five alleged that Zweifel, by engaging in such conduct, also committed securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i (1), (2) 52 and 77q(a), 53 and the Georgia code, Ga.”
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission (2009)
“[34] Of those, the closest linguistically to § 604(b) is 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a). That statute provides, "No objection to [an] order of the [Securities and Exchange] Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the [SEC].”
Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n (2019)
“…any person aggrieved by an SEC regulation to seek judicial review in this Court. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a), 80a-42(a) ; N.Y. Republican State Comm. v. S.E.C. , <a href="/opinion/2”
Malouf v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n (2019)
“See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) (Securities Act), 78y(c) (Securities Exchange Act), 80b-13(a) (Investment Advisers Act).”
Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Gonzales (2007)
“§ 160 (e) (National Labor Relations Act provision proscribing judicial review of any “objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency”); 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) (Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 provision providing that judicial review of an order…”
In Re Electronic Data Systems Corp. \ERISA\" Litigation" (2004)
“1990); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l). Plaintiffs allege that between June, 1996 and November 18, 2002 EDS issued unregistered shares of its stock to the Plan.”
Bernerd Young v. SEC (2020)
“2018) (per curiam) (holding that Rule 26(b)(2) bars tolling of time to file a petition for review of an SEC order under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i, 78y(a)(1), 80b-13). Amicus for Mr.”
Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp. (2012)
“After discovery, the Nonneman plaintiffs learned that OKO had engaged in a general solicitation to sell its investments, rendering it unqualified for the SEC filing exemption it had sought, and they filed a second securities claim under § 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933,…”
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1981)
“[11] Title 15 U. S. C. §§ 77i, 78y, 80a-42, and 80b-13 provide for judicial review of Commission orders in the courts of appeals.”
Yakus v. United States (1944)
“81 , 15 U.S.C. § 77i; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.”
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan (2019)
“…mandate (with a built-in exception) could not be stated in plainer terms. Many statutes fit the same mold. E.g., 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a); 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e); 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a); United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., <span class="citat”
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(1) — 2 cases
Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc. (1989)
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(2) — 71 cases
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. (1995)
Pinter v. Dahl (1988)
Randall v. Loftsgaarden (1986)
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) — 42 cases
Bandimere v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission (2016)
“-2- Exercising jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) and 78y(a)(1), we grant Mr.”
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Public Service Commission (2009)
“[34] Of those, the closest linguistically to § 604(b) is 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a). That statute provides, "No objection to [an] order of the [Securities and Exchange] Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the [SEC].”
Twin Rivers Paper Co. v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n (2019)
“…any person aggrieved by an SEC regulation to seek judicial review in this Court. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a), 80a-42(a) ; N.Y. Republican State Comm. v. S.E.C. , <a href="/opinion/2”
Malouf v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n (2019)
“See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i(a) (Securities Act), 78y(c) (Securities Exchange Act), 80b-13(a) (Investment Advisers Act).”
Lin Zhong v. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Gonzales (2007)
“§ 160 (e) (National Labor Relations Act provision proscribing judicial review of any “objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency”); 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a) (Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 provision providing that judicial review of an order…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(1) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(2) — 58 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(2)(2003) — 1 case
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l) — 6 cases
In Re Electronic Data Systems Corp. \ERISA\" Litigation" (2004)
“1990); see also 15 U.S.C. § 77i(a)(l). Plaintiffs allege that between June, 1996 and November 18, 2002 EDS issued unregistered shares of its stock to the Plan.”
Nolfi v. Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp. (2012)
“After discovery, the Nonneman plaintiffs learned that OKO had engaged in a general solicitation to sell its investments, rendering it unqualified for the SEC filing exemption it had sought, and they filed a second securities claim under § 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933,…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(b) — 6 cases
— 15 U.S.C. § 77i(l) — 29 cases
Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel, Ronald O. Pelletier v. Gary D. Zweifel (1991)
“51 Counts three, four, and five alleged that Zweifel, by engaging in such conduct, also committed securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77i (1), (2) 52 and 77q(a), 53 and the Georgia code, Ga.”
Ackerman v. Schwartz (1989)
Topalian v. Ehrman (1992)
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.