Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ernst and Ernst Vs. Hochfelder

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 30, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

69 entries 2 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. J. I Case Co. Vs. Borak US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1964
  2. TcherepnIn Vs. Knight US Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1967
  3. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  4. U.S. 185 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  5. U.S. 185 (1976) Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  6. of a private cause of action for violations of the statute and the Rule is now well established. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  7. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United
    Search
  8. Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers
    Search
  9. FTC v. Bunte
    Search
  10. b) was intended to proscribe knowing or intentional misconduct. See SEC v. Texas
    Search
  11. Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 868 (CA2 1968) (Friendly, J., concurring), cert. denied sub nom. Coates v. SEC
    Search
  12. Loss, Summary Remarks, 30 Bus.Law. 163, 165 (Special Issue 1975). See also Kohn v. American
    Search
  13. Acts to protect investors against false and deceptive practices that might injure them. See Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United
    Search
  14. U. S. 426 , 377 U. S. 432 -433 (1964). See also SEC v. Capital
    Search
  15. gloss to the operative language of the statute quite different from its commonly accepted meaning. See, e.g., Addison v. Holly
    Search
  16. States, 406 U.S. at 406 U. S. 151 , quoting SEC v. Capital
    Search
  17. misconduct, and mindful that the language of a statute controls when sufficiently clear in its context, United States v. Oregon
    Search
  18. Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB
    Search
  19. in securities. See Blue Chip Stamps, 421 U.S. at 421 U. S. 727 -730. As the Court indicated in SEC v. National
    Search
  20. b)(3)(b)(i). See, e.g., Escott v. Barchris
    Search
  21. See, e.g., Fischman Page 425 U. S. 211 v. Raytheon
    Search
  22. SEC v. Texas
    Search
  23. Rosenberg v. Globe
    Search
  24. Dixon v. United
    Search
  25. States, 381 U. S. 68 , 381 U. S. 74 (1965), quoting Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner
    Search
  26. b) and related sections of the Acts. See, e.g., Gerstle v. Gamble-Skogmo
    Search
  27. Lanza v. Drexel
    Search
  28. it had aided and abetted Nay's fraud. Summary judgment in favor of the Exchange was affirmed on appeal. Hochfelder v. Midwest
    Search
  29. except two asserted claims based on the fraudulent escrow accounts. These claims ultimately were allowed in SEC v. First
    Search
  30. In support of this holding, the Court of Appeals cited its decision in Hochfelder v. Midwest
    Search
  31. under the section and the Rule, nor the elements necessary to establish such a cause of action. See, e.g., Brennan v. Midwestern
    Search
  32. did not specifically foresee that respondents' limited class might suffer from a negligent audit, compare Glanzer v. Shepard
    Search
  33. N.Y. 236, 135 N.E. 275 (1922), with Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
    Search
  34. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Nat. Bank v. Swartz
    Search
  35. in this case, although it did discuss the loans to Nay and certain other related matters in its opinion in Hochfelder v. Midwest
    Search
  36. b) and Rule 105. See, e.g., White v. Abrams
    Search
  37. Myzel v. Fields
    Search
  38. Kohler v. Kohler
    Search
  39. for the truth, or knowing use of some practice to defraud -- is necessary in such an action. See, e.g., Clegg v. Conk
    Search
  40. b) and Rule 10b-5 actually have involved only negligent conduct. Smallwood v. Pearl
    Search
  41. Kohn v. American
    Search
  42. b) and Rule 10b-5. Cf. SEC v. Capital
    Search
  43. Birnbaum v. Newport
    Search
  44. Kardon v. National
    Search
  45. Addison v. Holly
    Search
  46. under criminal law. Ferdinand Pecorn, counsel to the committee and a draftsman of S. 2693, Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  48. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  49. FTC v. Bunte
    Search
  50. See SEC v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial