Citation network
Reves Vs. Ernst and Young
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1990
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
-
Reves v. ErnstSearch
-
Young - 494 U.S. 56 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Reves v. ErnstSearch
-
Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990) Reves v. ErnstSearch
-
note purchasers. Petitioners prevailed at trial, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Applying the test created in SEC v. W.JSearch
-
of the Eighth Circuit, agreeing with Arthur Young on both the state and federal issues, reversed. Arthur Young & Co. v. RevesSearch
-
SEC v. W.JSearch
-
formalisms, but instead take account of the economics of the transaction under investigation. See, e.g., Tcherepnin v. KnightSearch
-
within the class Congress intended to regulate because they are by their nature investments. In Landreth Timber Co. v. LandrethSearch
-
Ibid. (citing Securities Industry Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
from notes issued in a commercial or consumer context (which are not). See, e.g., Futura Development Corp. v. CentexSearch
-
McClure v. FirstSearch
-
Hunssinger v. RockfordSearch
-
HolIoway v. PeatSearch
-
Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. ToucheSearch
-
id. at 1137-1138, or convinces the court to add a new instrument to the list. See, e.g., Chemical Bank v. ArthurSearch
-
CA2 1984). In contrast, the Eighth and District of Columbia Circuits apply the test we created in SEC v. W.JSearch
-
Arthur Young & Co. v. RevesSearch
-
F.2d at 54. Accord, Baurer v. PlanningSearch
-
Group, Inc., 215 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 391-393, 669 F.2d 770, 777-779 (1981). See also Underhill v. RoyalSearch
-
of the instrument, SEC v. C.MSearch
-
and subject to substantial regulation under the federal banking laws, and unlike the pension plan in Teamsters v. DanielSearch
-
McMahon v. O'KeefeSearch
-
Sanders v. JohnSearch
-
set out in an opinion by Judge Sprecher, ibid., and soon thereafter endorsed by Chief Judge Friendly. Zeller v. BogueSearch
-
CA2 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 908 (1973). Others have adopted the same position since. See, e.g., McClure v. FirstSearch
-
Baurer v. PlanningSearch
-
American Express Inc. v. McMahonSearch
-
Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. SchwalbSearch
-
Commissioner v. FinkSearch
-
but this is not such a case. Id. at 483 U. S. 103 (quoting Square D Co. v. NiagaraSearch
-
Securities Industry Assn. v. BoardSearch
-
of the 1934 Act. See Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. ToucheSearch
-
Co. v. LandrethSearch
-
than plain, we depend on the common understanding of those terms at the time of the statute's creation. See Gilbert v. UnitedSearch
-
Roadway Express v. PiperSearch
-
Standard Oil v. UnitedSearch
-
Lorillard v. PonsSearch
-
United States v. SpencerSearch
-
See also Securities Industry Ass'n. v. BoardSearch
-
See ante at 494 U. S. 71 . Rather, in the absence of a federal law of negotiable instruments, cf. DeSylva v. BallentineSearch
-
As we said in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. HolyfieldSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Reves v. ErnstSearch
-
In Landreth Timber Co. v. LandrethSearch
-
Futura Development Corp. v. CentexSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial