RUSKAY ET AL.

v.

WADDELL ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (52 total)

• Huddleston v. Herman & MacLEAN, 640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …tandard, tempered by the requirement of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff, rather than the objective reliance test applicable under the justifiable reliance concept. See, e. g., Dupuy v. Dupuy, 551 F. 2d 1005, 1014 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 312, 54 L.Ed.2d 197 (1977). See also 5 A. Jacobs, The Impact of Rule 10b-5 § 64.01[b][iii], 3-252 & 3-253 & n.5 (Supp. 1980).23 The district court, induced by counsel, confused materiality with reliance. The concepts are distinct and mu…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Shores v. Sklar, 647 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …d 348 (1980) (including, in a description of Aftili-ated Ute, a reference to the reliance by the Indian sellers upon the Bank’s personnel). . Judge John Minor Wisdom, writing for our court in Dupuy v. Dupuy, 551 F. 2d 1005 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 312, 54 L.Ed.2d 197 (1977), summarized the elements of a private cause of action under Rule 10b-5: The courts have established that with regard to private recovery for the violation of rule 1 Ob-5, a properly stated cause of action must e…
• Teamsters Local 282 Pension Tr. Fund v. Angelos, 762 F.2d 522 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …e care or diligence ... is not available in an intentional fraud case.” [*529] See also Competitive Associates, Inc. v. Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, 516 F. 2d 811 (2d Cir.1975); but cf. Dupuy v. Dupuy, 551 F. 2d 1005, 1015 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 312, 54 L.Ed.2d 197 (1977). We drew a line between fraud and negligent nondisclosure: “In a nondisclosure case, reliance is vitiated if the plaintiff is chargeable with the omitted information____ But under a reckless or Hochfelder scien…