TULIPANO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 649 F.2d 175 (3d Cir. 1981)
  …uttable presumption. We therefore reject both arguments. A. Reliance is an element of a plaintiff’s action for damages under rule 10b-5. See Straub v. Vaisman & Co., 540 F. 2d at 596; Landy v. FDIC, 486 F. 2d 139, 170 (3d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1979, 40 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974); see also Thomas v. Duralite Co., 524 F. 2d 577, 583 (3d Cir. 1975).15 The obvious reason for this requirement is that a plaintiff in a rule 10b-5 action should not be allowed to recover damages when the defenda…
• C.N.S. Enters., Inc. v. G. & G. Enters., Inc., 508 F.2d 1354 (7th Cir. 1975)
  …uch as Congress specified the context-over-text approach in both acts,6 the next step is to discover what “context” applies in the circumstances of this case. In Eason v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 490 F. 2d 654 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1979, 40 L.Ed.2d 312 (1974), this court rejected the purchaser-seller “standing” rule of the Birnhaum case 7 in favor of an identification of persons to whom the 1934 Act, and particularly section 10(b) and Rule 10b — 5, extended protectio…
• United States v. Oliver, 525 F.2d 731 (8th Cir. 1975)
  …en there is a genuine issue as to identity, motive, intent, preconceived plan, entrapment, or absence of mistake or accident, evidence of other crimes may be admissible. See, e. g., Umbaugh v. Hutto, 486 F. 2d 904, 906 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1978, 40 L.Ed.2d 311 (1974); United States v. Lewis, 423 F. 2d 457, 459 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 146, 27 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). It must first be shown, however, that (1) an issue on which other crime evidence may be…

  ← 1 / 2 →