Citation network
Holmes Vs. Securities Investor Protection Corporation
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 13, 1991
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
-
Holmes v. SecuritiesSearch
-
Investor Protection Corporation - 503 U.S. 258 (1991) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus HOLMES v. SECURITIESSearch
-
of the Sherman Act, see Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
have been resolved on proximate-causation grounds, and that none involved litigants like those in Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. 45a,5 and that neither 4 See generally Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. VigmanSearch
-
Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. VigmanSearch
-
called Birnbaum test, which requires a plaintiff to be a purchaser or seller of a security. See Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
Birnbaum v. NewportSearch
-
reversed and remanded after rejecting both of the District Court's grounds. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. VigmanSearch
-
b) and Rule 10b-5, see Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
cause of plaintiff's injury. Cf. Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
p. 264 (5th ed. 1984) (quoting North v. JohnsonSearch
-
of Appeals have overwhelmingly held that not mere factual, but proximate, causation is required. See, e. g., Pelletier v. ZweifelSearch
-
Ocean Energy II, Inc. v. AlexanderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brandenburg v. SeidelSearch
-
Sperber v. BoeskySearch
-
Haroco, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
Indeed, the court below recognized a proximate-cause requirement. See Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. VigmanSearch
-
key to the better interpretation lies in some statutory history. We have repeatedly observed, see Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
American Express Inc. v. McMahonSearch
-
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. ImrexSearch
-
to incorporate common-law principles of proximate causation, 459 U. S., at 533-534, and n. 29 (citing Loeb v. EastmanSearch
-
Ames v. AmericanSearch
-
See Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
it intended them to have the same meaning that courts had already given them. See, e. g., Oscar Mayer & Co. v. EvansSearch
-
Northcross v. MemphisSearch
-
Hawaii v. StandardSearch
-
as a component of the proximate-cause enquiry. See Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
has no analogue in the RICO setting. See Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. ImrexSearch
-
to RICO, which we rejected in Sedima, supra, at 495-497. See Brandenburg V. SeidelSearch
-
see generally Mishkin v. PeatSearch
-
is support for the proposition that SIPC can assert statelaw subrogation rights against third parties. See Redington v. ToucheSearch
-
securities themselves were victims of Holmes' fraud. See Brief for Respondent 39, n. 185 (citing Ashland Oil, Inc. v. ArnettSearch
-
Bankers Trust Co. v. RhoadesSearch
-
ed., Supp. I), the broker-dealers' customers might be proximately injured by these offenses. See, e. g., Taffet v. SouthernSearch
-
County of Suffolk v. LongSearch
-
priority its claim would have in the directly injured victim's liquidation proceedings. See Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. ExchangeSearch
-
Warner v. AlexanderSearch
-
Grant & Co., 828 F.2d 1528 , 1530 (CAll 1987) (same), with International Data Bank, Ltd. v. ZepkinSearch
-
Brannan v. EisensteinSearch
-
have been resolved on proximatecausation grounds, and that none involved litigants like those in Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
b) and Rule 10b-5 created an implied right of action. Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. BankersSearch
-
Life & Casualty Co., 404 U. S. 6 , 13, n. 9. Four years later, in Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
seller limitation does not apply to suits brought under RICO. Securities Investment Protection Corp. v. VigmanSearch
-
F.2d 1461 (CA9 1990). An ex- IThat acceptance was not universal. E. g., Eason v. GeneralSearch
-
seller standing requirement. The statute sweeps 2 Compare Securities Investment Protection Corp. v. VigmanSearch
-
Syllabus Holmes V. SecuritiesSearch
-
Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. CarpentersSearch
-
Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial