15 U.S.C. § 78y

Court review of orders and rules

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Final Commission orders; persons aggrieved; petition; record; findings; affirmance, modification, enforcement, or setting aside of orders; remand to adduce additional evidence(1) A person aggrieved by a final order of the Commission entered pursuant to this chapter may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which he resides or has his principal place of business, or for the District of Columbia Circuit, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the entry of the order, a written petition requesting that the order be modified or set aside in whole or in part.(2) A copy of the petition shall be transmitted forthwith by the clerk of the court to a member of the Commission or an officer designated by the Commission for that purpose. Thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record on which the order complained of is entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.(3) On the filing of the petition, the court has jurisdiction, which becomes exclusive on the filing of the record, to affirm or modify and enforce or to set aside the order in whole or in part.(4) The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.(5) If either party applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there was reasonable ground for failure to adduce it before the Commission, the court may remand the case to the Commission for further proceedings, in whatever manner and on whatever conditions the court considers appropriate. If the case is remanded to the Commission, it shall file in the court a supplemental record containing any new evidence, any further or modified findings, and any new order.(b) Commission rules; persons adversely affected; petition; record; affirmance, enforcement, or setting aside of rules; findings; transfer of proceedings(1) A person adversely affected by a rule of the Commission promulgated pursuant to section 78f, 78i(h)(2), 78k, 78k–1, 78o(c)(5) or (6), 78o–3, 78q, 78q–1, or 78s of this title may obtain review of this rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which he resides or has his principal place of business or for the District of Columbia Circuit, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the promulgation of the rule, a written petition requesting that the rule be set aside.(2) A copy of the petition shall be transmitted forthwith by the clerk of the court to a member of the Commission or an officer designated for that purpose. Thereupon, the Commission shall file in the court the rule under review and any documents referred to therein, the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and any documents referred to therein, all written submissions and the transcript of any oral presentations in the rulemaking, factual information not included in the foregoing that was considered by the Commission in the promulgation of the rule or proffered by the Commission as pertinent to the rule, the report of any advisory committee received or considered by the Commission in the rulemaking, and any other materials prescribed by the court.(3) On the filing of the petition, the court has jurisdiction, which becomes exclusive on the filing of the materials set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection, to affirm and enforce or to set aside the rule.(4) The findings of the Commission as to the facts identified by the Commission as the basis, in whole or in part, of the rule, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The court shall affirm and enforce the rule unless the Commission’s action in promulgating the rule is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; or without observance of procedure required by law.(5) If proceedings have been instituted under this subsection in two or more courts of appeals with respect to the same rule, the Commission shall file the materials set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection in that court in which a proceeding was first instituted. The other courts shall thereupon transfer all such proceedings to the court in which the materials have been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice that court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings to any other court of appeals.(c) Objections not urged before Commission; stay of orders and rules; transfer of enforcement or review proceedings(1) No objection to an order or rule of the Commission, for which review is sought under this section, may be considered by the court unless it was urged before the Commission or there was reasonable ground for failure to do so.(2) The filing of a petition under this section does not operate as a stay of the Commission’s order or rule. Until the court’s jurisdiction becomes exclusive, the Commission may stay its order or rule pending judicial review if it finds that justice so requires. After the filing of a petition under this section, the court, on whatever conditions may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury, may issue all necessary and appropriate process to stay the order or rule or to preserve status or rights pending its review; but (notwithstanding section 705 of title 5) no such process may be issued by the court before the filing of the record or the materials set forth in subsection (b)(2) of this section unless: (A) the Commission has denied a stay or failed to grant requested relief, (B) a reasonable period has expired since the filing of an application for a stay without a decision by the Commission, or (C) there was reasonable ground for failure to apply to the Commission.(3) When the same order or rule is the subject of one or more petitions for review filed under this section and an action for enforcement filed in a district court of the United States under section 78u(d) or (e) of this title, that court in which the petition or the action is first filed has jurisdiction with respect to the order or rule to the exclusion of any other court, and thereupon all such proceedings shall be transferred to that court; but, for the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice, that court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings to any other court of appeals or district court of the United States, whether or not a petition for review or an action for enforcement was originally filed in the transferee court. The scope of review by a district court under section 78u(d) or (e) of this title is in all cases the same as by a court of appeals under this section.(d) Other appropriate regulatory agencies(1) For purposes of the preceding subsections of this section, the term “Commission” includes the agencies enumerated in section 78c(a)(34) of this title insofar as such agencies are acting pursuant to this chapter and the Secretary of the Treasury insofar as he is acting pursuant to section 78o–5 of this title.(2) For purposes of subsection (a)(4) of this section and section 706 of title 5, an order of the Commission pursuant to section 78s(a) of this title denying registration to a clearing agency for which the Commission is not the appropriate regulatory agency or pursuant to section 78s(b) of this title disapproving a proposed rule change by such a clearing agency shall be deemed to be an order of the appropriate regulatory agency for such clearing agency insofar as such order was entered by reason of a determination by such appropriate regulatory agency pursuant to section 78s(a)(2)(C) or 78s(b)(4)(C) of this title that such registration or proposed rule change would be inconsistent with the safeguarding of securities or funds.(June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, § 25, 48 Stat. 901; June 7, 1934, ch. 426, 48 Stat. 926; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 85–791, § 10, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 945; Pub. L. 94–29, § 20, June 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 158; Pub. L. 99–571, title I, § 102(k), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3220; Pub. L. 101–432, § 6(b), Oct. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 975.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1) and (d)(1), was in the original “this title”. See References in Text note set out under section 78a of this title.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–432 inserted “78i(h)(2),” after “section 78f,”.

1986—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 99–571 inserted “and the Secretary of the Treasury insofar as he is acting pursuant to section 78o–5 of this title”.

1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–29 revised existing provisions into five numbered paragraphs.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–29 substituted provisions permitting persons adversely affected by any rule promulgated by the Commission pursuant to sections 78f, 78k, 78k–1, 78o(c)(5) or (6), 78o–3, 78q, 78q–1, or 78s of this title to obtain direct review in an appropriate Court of Appeals for provisions that commencement of proceedings under subsec. (a) shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Commission’s order.

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 94–29 added subsecs. (c) and (d).

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”, and, in third sentence, substituted “petition” for “transcript”, and “jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record shall be exclusive” for “exclusive jurisdiction”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals”.

Act June 7, 1934, substituted “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” for “Court of Appeals for District of Columbia”.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–571 effective 270 days after Oct. 28, 1986, see section 401 of Pub. L. 99–571, set out as an Effective Date note under section 78o–5 of this title.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–29 effective June 4, 1975, see section 31(a) of Pub. L. 94–29, set out as a note under section 78b of this title.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

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. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, set out under section 78d of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 469 cases (79 in the last 5 years), 1936–2026 · leading case: Gray Fin. Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 825 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gray Fin. Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 825 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 14× “15 U.S.C. § 78y. The issue presented in this consolidated appeal is whether respondents in an SEC administrative enforcement action can bypass the Exchange Act’s review scheme by filing a collateral lawsuit in federal district court challenging the administrative proceeding on…”

Cochran v. SEC, 20 F.4th 194 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 11× “19-10396 Haynes, Circuit Judge, joined by Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, 2 Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges: The question presented is whether a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78y, implicitly strips federal…”

Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023). · cites it 3× “902 (codi- fed, as amended, at 15 U. S. C. § 78y). In the 1930s, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the appellate review model against arguments that it violated the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment.”

Lanier v. Bats Exch., Inc., 838 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “Rejecting the government’s argument that the plaintiffs were required to first seek review by the SEC, the Supreme Court explained that judicial review was not precluded because 15 U.S.C. § 78y “provides only for judicial review of [SEC] action” and the plaintiffs’ challenge was…”

Loan Syndications & Trading Ass'n v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 818 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “The Exchange Act contains wh'at we have described as a “carefully constructed' jurisdictional scheme,” codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78y. Am. Petrol. Inst., 714 F.”

PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019). · cites it 3× “See 15 U. S. C. §§78y(a)(1), (3), (b)(1), (3); 29 U.”

Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “Several years later, in Free Enterprise, the Supreme Court- considered whether a district court could exercise jurisdiction over another pre-enforcement challenge— an Article II challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”)—despite the Exchange…”

Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “” See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a); see also id. § 77i(a).”

Sacks v. SEC, 648 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 12× “Replace: However, the regulation does not apply here because 15 U.S.C. § 78y sets out the exclusive procedure for judicial review of rules that are proposed by self-regulating organizations and adopted by the SEC under § 78s.”

Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 431 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 78y(a) (2000). In this case, the Commission reversed a determination by NAC disciplining a NASD member and its owner for, among other things, engaging in a manipulative scheme in violation of § 10(b) of the Ex *15 change Act, 15 U.”

Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “§ 7217 (b)(2)-(4), (c)(2), and because parties can challenge either a “final rule” or a “final order” of the Com *20 mission in a court of appeals pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78y, the accounting firm should have pursued its constitutional challenge through that route instead.”

Sharemaster v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 847 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 25(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1).4 reasonably notified Sharemaster that the suspension would not lift until FINRA conducted and completed .”

Show all 469 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(A)(4) — 1 case

Vail v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 101 F.3d 37 (5th Cir. 1996).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a) — 94 cases

Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 431 F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 78y(a) (2000). In this case, the Commission reversed a determination by NAC disciplining a NASD member and its owner for, among other things, engaging in a manipulative scheme in violation of § 10(b) of the Ex *15 change Act, 15 U.”

The Georgia Repub. Party v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 888 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2018).

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024).

Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “” See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a); see also id. § 77i(a).”

United States v. The J. B. Williams Co., Inc., & Parkson Advert. Agency, Inc., 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1) — 93 cases

Cochran v. SEC, 20 F.4th 194 (5th Cir. 2021). “19-10396 Haynes, Circuit Judge, joined by Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, 2 Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges: The question presented is whether a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78y, implicitly strips federal…”

PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019). “See 15 U. S. C. §§78y(a)(1), (3), (b)(1), (3); 29 U.”

Gray Fin. Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 825 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016). “15 U.S.C. § 78y. The issue presented in this consolidated appeal is whether respondents in an SEC administrative enforcement action can bypass the Exchange Act’s review scheme by filing a collateral lawsuit in federal district court challenging the administrative proceeding on…”

Axon Enter., Inc. v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023). “902 (codi- fed, as amended, at 15 U. S. C. § 78y). In the 1930s, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the appellate review model against arguments that it violated the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment.”

Patrick Collins v. Steven Mnuchin, Secretar, 938 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2019).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(3) — 20 cases

Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2014).

Altman v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 768 F. Supp. 2d 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Jarkesy v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “§ 7217 (b)(2)-(4), (c)(2), and because parties can challenge either a “final rule” or a “final order” of the Com *20 mission in a court of appeals pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78y, the accounting firm should have pursued its constitutional challenge through that route instead.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(4) — 102 cases

Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 866 F.3d 442 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Sharemaster v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 847 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2017). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 25(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1).4 reasonably notified Sharemaster that the suspension would not lift until FINRA conducted and completed .”

Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Gonnella v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 954 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2020).

Pierce v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 786 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(5) — 9 cases

Hill v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 114 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 146 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Automated Matching Sys. Exch., LLC v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 826 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(8) — 1 case

Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 146 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(l) — 96 cases

Lanier v. Bats Exch., Inc., 838 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2016). “Rejecting the government’s argument that the plaintiffs were required to first seek review by the SEC, the Supreme Court explained that judicial review was not precluded because 15 U.S.C. § 78y “provides only for judicial review of [SEC] action” and the plaintiffs’ challenge was…”

Watts v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 482 F.3d 501 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “” See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a); see also id. § 77i(a).”

Gupta v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 796 F. Supp. 2d 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Adams v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 287 F.3d 183 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Netcoalition v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 715 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(b) — 7 cases

United States v. The J. B. Williams Co., Inc., & Parkson Advert. Agency, Inc., 498 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1974).

Levy v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 462 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2006).

Am. Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 93 F.2d 236 (D.C. Cir. 1937).

Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 286 F. Supp. 3d 111 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. (D.D.C. 2017).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(b)(1) — 9 cases

Loan Syndications & Trading Ass'n v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 818 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The Exchange Act contains wh'at we have described as a “carefully constructed' jurisdictional scheme,” codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78y. Am. Petrol. Inst., 714 F.”

Humane Soc'y of the United States v. AGRI, 41 F.4th 564 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Sacks v. SEC, 648 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2011). “Replace: However, the regulation does not apply here because 15 U.S.C. § 78y sets out the exclusive procedure for judicial review of rules that are proposed by self-regulating organizations and adopted by the SEC under § 78s.”

New York Stock Exch. LLC v. SEC, 2 F.4th 989 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Silberstein v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 153 F. Supp. 3d 233 (D.D.C. 2016).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(b)(4) — 7 cases

Chamber of Com of the USA v. SEC, 85 F.4th 760 (5th Cir. 2023).

The Nasdaq Stock Mkt. LLC v. SEC, 34 F.4th 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

United States v. Marcus Schloss & Co., Inc., 710 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

Sacks v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 635 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2011).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(b)(l) — 6 cases

Benton Cnty. v. Friends of Benton Cnty., 653 P.2d 1249 (Or. 1982).

Ass'n of Inv. Brokers, & Anthony W. Tedeschi v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 676 F.2d 857 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

Stephen Inv. Sec., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 27 F.3d 339 (8th Cir. 1994).

Sacks v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 635 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2011).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c) — 5 cases

Culclasure v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 375 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Pa. 2019).

Muhammad v. Berryhill, 381 F. Supp. 3d 462 (E.D. Pa. 2019).

Wilson v. Berryhill, 379 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D. Pa. 2019).

White v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (2d Cir. 2020).

Salas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Wash. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(1) — 46 cases

Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83 (2021).

Malouf v. SEC. & Exch. Comm'n, 933 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2019).

Lisa Probst v. Andrew Saul, 980 F.3d 1015 (4th Cir. 2020).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(2) — 6 cases

Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 844 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2016). “Several years later, in Free Enterprise, the Supreme Court- considered whether a district court could exercise jurisdiction over another pre-enforcement challenge— an Article II challenge to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”)—despite the Exchange…”

Hayden v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 4 F. Supp. 2d 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

Checkosky v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 23 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(c)(l) — 25 cases

Geiger v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 363 F.3d 481 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Kpmg, LLP v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 289 F.3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Siegel v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 592 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Washington Ass'n for Television & Child. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 712 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

William B. Blount v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Mun. Sec. Rulemaking Bd., Intervenor, 61 F.3d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(d)(1) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 78y(e)(l) — 1 case

Franklin v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 285 F. App'x 761 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

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.