Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gustafson Vs. Alloyd Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 02, 1994

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

71 entries 5 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Kokoszka Vs. Belford US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1974
  2. United States Vs. Naftalin US Supreme Court · May 21, 1979
  3. Landreth Timber Co. Vs. Landreth US Supreme Court · May 28, 1985
  4. Fdic Vs. Meyer US Supreme Court · Oct 04, 1993
  5. Demarest Vs. Manspeaker US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1991
  6. Gustafson v. Alloyd
    Search
  7. Co. - 513 U.S. 561 (1994) October Term, 1994 Syllabus Gustafson Et Al. V. Alloyd
    Search
  8. Pp. 573-576. 563 (e) The holding in this case draws support from the decision in United States v. Naftalin
    Search
  9. purchasers to drop the lawsuit. Relying on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Ballay v. Legg
    Search
  10. and remanded for further consideration in light of that court's intervening decision in Pacific Dunlop Holdings Inc. v. Allen
    Search
  11. throughout the Act. That principle follows from our duty to construe statutes, not isolated provisions. See Philbrook v. Glodgett
    Search
  12. in particular. Compare Ballay v. Legg
    Search
  13. and 12), with Pacific Dunlop Holdings Inc. v. Allen
    Search
  14. De partment of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF
    Search
  15. see also Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown
    Search
  16. Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United
    Search
  17. registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings. See, e. g., Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  18. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  19. SEC v. Ralston
    Search
  20. construction. First, the Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant. See United States v. Menasche
    Search
  21. Reves v. Ernst
    Search
  22. offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or com- 577 States v. Naftalin
    Search
  23. U. S. 681 , 685 (1985) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  24. U. S. 723 , 756 (1975) (Powell, J., 585 concurring)). See also Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First
    Search
  25. every term in a series narrowly because of the meaning given to just one of the terms. See Russell Motor Car Co. v. United
    Search
  26. I also recognize the general presumption that a given term bears the same meaning throughout a statute. See Brown v. Gardner
    Search
  27. of the 1933 Act reaches beyond initial distributions to aftermarket trading. United States v. Naftalin
    Search
  28. Ibid. (quoting SEe v. National
    Search
  29. Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
    Search
  30. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson
    Search
  31. U. S., at 188 (quoting Demarest v. Manspeaker
    Search
  32. NationsBank of N. c., N. A. v. Variable
    Search
  33. Annuity Life Ins. Co., ante, at 262. In Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United
    Search
  34. that enforcement provision, this Court has recognized, also covers secondary trading. See United States v. Naftalin
    Search
  35. see also SEC v. Ralston
    Search
  36. See Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy
    Search
  37. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. v. Jones
    Search
  38. Pacific Dunlop Holdings Inc. v. Allen
    Search
  39. see also Adalman v. Baker
    Search
  40. it. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor
    Search
  41. of the federal Securi- 5 Compare Pacific Dunlop Holdings Inc. v. Allen
    Search
  42. cert. granted, 510 U. S. 1083, cert. dism'd, 510 U. S. 1160 (1994), with First Union Discount Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Milos
    Search
  43. Ballay v. Legg
    Search
  44. they have been read to cover secondary transactions, see, e. g., Banton v. Hackney
    Search
  45. Bradley v. Hullander
    Search
  46. S & F Supply Co. v. Hunter
    Search
  47. P. 2d 217 (Utah 1974), as well as private transactions, see, e. g., Towery v. Lucas
    Search
  48. Jenkins v. Jacobs
    Search
  49. Gaudina v. Haberman
    Search
  50. Foelker v. Kwake
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial