ESTELLE LATTA, APPELLANT,
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the undisputed facts established violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, entitling the SEC to an injunction.
The SEC sought an injunction against Latta for alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933. Both parties moved for summary judgment,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this action the Securities and Exchange Commission sought an injunction against Estelle Latta, defendant below, enjoining and restraining the defendant from engaging in acts and practices alleged to constitute violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c) and § 77q(a) (2), and (3)). The plaintiff moved for a summary judgment supporting its motion by affidavits and by deposition of the defendant. The defendant also moved for a summary judgment but filed no affidavit and made no other showing in support thereof or in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
After consideration of the motions and examination of the plaintiff’s affidavits and of the deposition, the court found that the undisputed facts disclosed by the affidavits and deposition established that plaintiff was entitled to the injunction sought. The court found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The court entered judgment granting the injunction prayed for in the complaint, D.C., 250 F.Supp. 170.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and examination of the record and the oral argument presented to the court we are of the view that the trial court was correct in holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Commission was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
The Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Hutton, 422 F.2d 1124 (4th Cir. 1970)
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence