HEAD

v.

KORSHAK, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• Skehan v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Bloomsburg State Coll. & Dr. Robert Nossen & Dr. Charles Carlson & John Pittenger, 590 F.2d 470 (3d Cir. 1978)
  …y of probative evidence. It is clear that “[generally, whether a trial court will reopen a case to take more [*478] testimony is discretionary with that court.” Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F. 2d 891, 894 n. 6 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 2205, 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976); see Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331, 91 S.Ct. 795, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971). The contention that Skehan presses most vigorously in arguing that the trial court abused that discre…
• Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1985)
  ….1984). . The extent of respondeat superior liability under the federal securities laws, see e.g., Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 649 F. 2d 175, 180-85 (3d Cir.1981); Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F. 2d 880, 884-86 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 2205, 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976) is not before us.…
• Sharp v. Coopers & Lybrand, 649 F.2d 175 (3d Cir. 1981)
  …nt. The district court noted that this court has not recognized respondeat superior as a basis for establishing secondary liability under rule 10b-5, see Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades, 527 F. 2d 880, 884 (3d Cir. 1975) (Rochez II), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 993, 96 S.Ct. 2205, 48 L.Ed.2d 817 (1976), but reasoned that this case presents a sufficiently egregious situation to distinguish it from the prevailing case law. It relied on a “broker-dealer” exception alluded to in Rochez II, id. at 886, reasoning th…