Citation network
Randall Vs. Loftsgaarden
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 02, 1986
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
-
U.S. 647 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Randall v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
U.S. 647 (1986) Randall v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
Austin v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
Id. at 181 (quoting Garnatz v. StifelSearch
-
after a second panel ruled on various subsidiary issues, the Court of Appeals reconsidered the case en banc. Austin v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
Relying in part on the law of the case, and noting that the Second Circuit had reached a similar result in Salcer v. EnviconSearch
-
substantially equivalent to the damages permitted under section 28(a). Cf. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. UnitedSearch
-
benefits for purposes of calculating damages in federal securities fraud litigation. 474 U.S. 978 (1985). See Burgess v. PremierSearch
-
prescribes the remedy of rescission except where the plaintiff no longer owns the security. See Wigand v. Flo-TekSearch
-
the starting point in construing a statute is the language of the statute itself. E.g., Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. GreenSearch
-
U. S. 680 , 446 U. S. 695 (1980) (quoting Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This Court's decision in United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSearch
-
security at common law. See Brief for United States and SEC as Amici Curiae 13. Cf. Cereal Byproducts Co. v. HallSearch
-
S.Rep. No. 47, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1933). See also United States v. NaftalinSearch
-
any tax benefits received by petitioners. Page 478 U. S. 661 The Court of Appeals relied on Globus v. LawSearch
-
Radzanower v. ToucheSearch
-
Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148 , 426 U. S. 154 (1976) (quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 426 U. S. 154 , quoting Posadas v. NationalSearch
-
City Bank, 296 U. S. 497 , 296 U. S. 503 (1936). Cf. Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSearch
-
b) is an unsettled one. In Affiliated Ute Citizens v. UnitedSearch
-
b) cases involving fraud by a seller of securities, see, e.g., Harris v. AmericanSearch
-
Loss, at 1133. See, e.g., Blackie v. BarrackSearch
-
for guidance in defining the scope of this limitation. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. CurranSearch
-
Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
Janigan v. TaylorSearch
-
F.2d 781, 786 (CA1), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 879 (1965). See also Falk v. HoffmanSearch
-
will apply in cases of rescission, thus making the recovery taxable as ordinary income. See Hillsboro National Bank v. CommissionerSearch
-
Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. BernerSearch
-
U. S. 299 , 472 U. S. 310 (1985) (quoting J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
concerning tax benefits is ordinarily so speculative as to be beyond the jury's province. Cf. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. LiepeltSearch
-
held that investors may sue for fraud where a tax shelter investment has not produced promised tax benefits. See Sharp v. CoopersSearch
-
New Colonial Ice Co. v. HelveringSearch
-
they delayed tender or suit in order to increase their expected recovery should the market decline. See, e.g., Baumel v. RosenSearch
-
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. UnitedSearch
-
the value of the tax write-offs that the construction and operation of the underlying asset will generate. See Salcer v. EnviconSearch
-
Equities Corp., 744 F.2d 935, 938, 940 (CA2 1984), vacated and remanded, post, p. 1015. See also Austin v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
ways. First, the promoter may have misled him with respect to the level of potential tax benefits. See, e.g., Lasker v. BearSearch
-
Sharp v. CoopersSearch
-
This is not, however, to say, as the Court of Appeals did, see Austin v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
a major portion of what the investor bargains for and purchases in a tax shelter is the tax benefit. See Salcer v. EnviconSearch
-
a benefit of his bargain as are dividends that flow from a securities investment. Cf. United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Randall v. LoftsgaardenSearch
-
Garnatz v. StifelSearch
-
Salcer v. EnviconSearch
-
Cf. Affiliated Ute Citizens v. UnitedSearch
-
See Burgess v. PremierSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial