Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Landreth Timber Co. Vs. Landreth

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 28, 1985

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

64 entries 6 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. United Housing Foundation, Inc. Vs. Forman US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1975
  2. Marine Bank Vs. Weaver US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1982
  3. Michigan Vs. Long US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1983
  4. Gould Vs. Ruefenacht US Supreme Court · May 28, 1985
    Relied / Followed
  5. Teamsters Vs. Daniel US Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1979
  6. TcherepnIn Vs. Knight US Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1967
  7. U.S. 681 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth
    Search
  8. U.S. 681 (1985) Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth
    Search
  9. within the definition of the Acts, United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  10. of a company's stock was sold, thus inevitably leading to difficult questions of line-drawing. As explained in Gould v. Ruefenacht
    Search
  11. of the stock of a closely held corporation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 13a. Relying on United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  12. of the sale of business doctrine. 731 F.2d 1348 (1984). It agreed that it was bound by United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  13. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  14. Teamsters v. Daniel
    Search
  15. As we have observed in the past, this definition is quite broad, Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  16. within the meaning of the Acts. As we observed in United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  17. did not intend to provide a comprehensive federal remedy for Page 471 U. S. 688 all fraud, Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  18. Teamsters Page 471 U. S. 692 v. Daniel
    Search
  19. listed in the statutory definition would make the Acts' enumeration of many types of instruments superfluous. Golden v. Garafalo
    Search
  20. F.2d 1139, 1144 (CA2 1982). See Tcherepnin v. Knight
    Search
  21. in transactions where control passed to the purchaser would contravene the purposes of these provisions. Accord, Daily v. Morgan
    Search
  22. Daily v. Morgan
    Search
  23. U.S. at 421 U. S. 850 . As we recently suggested in a different context in Securities Industry Assn. v. Board
    Search
  24. and what provisions for voting and veto rights were agreed upon by the parties. As we explain more fully in Gould v. Refenacht
    Search
  25. the applicability of the Acts would hardly be in the best interests of either party to a transaction. Cf. Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  26. engage in extended discovery and litigation over a concept as often elusive as the passage of control. Accord, Golden v. Garafalo
    Search
  27. are virtually identical, and will be treated as such in our decisions dealing with the scope of the term. Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  28. Respondents also rely on Tcherepnin v. Knight
    Search
  29. U. S. 332 (1967), and Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  30. Weaver involved a certificate of deposit and a privately negotiated profit-sharing agreement. See Marine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  31. respondents quote our statement in Teamsters v. Daniel
    Search
  32. Post at 471 U. S. 698 . United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  33. in the legislative history that Congress considered the type of transactions involved in this case and in Gould v. Ruefenacht
    Search
  34. b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted by the Commission. What the Court said in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  35. with the congressional enactment and with the role of the federal judiciary in interpreting it, See J. I. Case Co. v Borak
    Search
  36. Id. at 421 U. S. 737 . See also Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  37. Sutter v. Groen
    Search
  38. concerned with transactions in securities that are traded in a public market. In United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  39. under the definition. Cf. Chemical Bank v. Arthur
    Search
  40. The marketing to the public of a large portfolio of mortgage loans, however, might well be. See Sanders v. John
    Search
  41. This opinion applies also to No. 84-165, Gould v. Ruefenacht
    Search
  42. Cf. Milnarik v. M-S
    Search
  43. not intended to displace state authority unless Congress has plainly indicated an intent to do so. See, e.g., Bennett v. New
    Search
  44. Garcia v. United
    Search
  45. United States v. Altohella
    Search
  46. F.2d 310, 316 (CA7 1971) (Stevens, J., for the court). Cf. Minnesota v. Clover
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth
    Search
  48. of the Acts, United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
    Search
  49. Golden v. Garafalo
    Search
  50. See Tcherepnin v. Knight
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial