Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sec Vs. Zandford

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 03, 2002

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

39 entries 2 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. O'Hagan US Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1997
  2. United States Vs. Naftalin US Supreme Court · May 21, 1979
  3. U.S. 813 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Securities and Exchange Commission V. Zandford
    Search
  4. thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry.''' Affili ated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United
    Search
  5. of the statute's ambiguous text in the context of formal adjudication is entitled to deference. See United States v. Mead
    Search
  6. of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on a stockbroker's customer. As in Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers
    Search
  7. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United
    Search
  8. and United States v. O'Hagan
    Search
  9. b), see United States v. O'Hagan
    Search
  10. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
    Search
  11. and affirm that disposition only if no set of facts would entitle petitioner to relief. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
    Search
  12. Id., at 16a, n. 1 (citing Zandford v. NASD
    Search
  13. Zandford v. NASD
    Search
  14. Zandford v. Prudential-Bache
    Search
  15. after the market crash of 1929. United States v. O'Hagan
    Search
  16. see also United States v. Naftalin
    Search
  17. Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United
    Search
  18. States, 406 U. S. 128, 151 (1972) (quoting SEC v. Capital
    Search
  19. the context of formal adjudication, is entitled to deference 820 if it is reasonable, see United States v. Mead
    Search
  20. b), Ma rine Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  21. was a fraud. United States v. Dunn
    Search
  22. sale of the Woods' securities is concerned, the case is remarkably similar to Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers
    Search
  23. F. 3d, at 565. In fact, we rejected the Second Circuit's position in Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers
    Search
  24. and misrepresentations is illusory in the context of a broker who has a fiduciary duty to her clients. See Chiarella v. United
    Search
  25. States, 406 U. S., at 153. More recently, in Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United
    Search
  26. of that benefit, but the connection between the deception and the sale in each case is identical. In United States v. O'Hagan
    Search
  27. with a sale of securities, but it would not involve a deceptive device or fraud. Cf. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
    Search
  28. Syllabus Securities and Exchange Commission V. Zandford
    Search
  29. Ute Citizens of Utah v. United
    Search
  30. See United States v. Mead
    Search
  31. Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers
    Search
  32. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
    Search
  33. SEC v. Capital
    Search
  34. United States v. Mead
    Search
  35. Bank v. Weaver
    Search
  36. See Chiarella v. United
    Search
  37. In United States v. O'Hagan
    Search
  38. Cf. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green
    Search
  39. United States v. Dunn
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial