ALVARADO

v.

INWOOD PANAMA, S. A.

Citator

Cited By (80 total)

• Schreiber v. Burlington N., Inc., 472 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985)
  …se or sale of any security.” 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 (1984). Because of the textual similarities, it is often assumed that § 14(e) was modeled on § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. See, e. g., Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F. 2d 271, 283 (CA7), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 1092 (1981). For the purpose of interpreting the term “manipulative,” the most significant changes from the language of § 10(b) were the addition of the term “fraudulent [*11],” and the reference to “acts” rather than “devices.” Neither change bears in a…
• Brown v. Brienen, 722 F.2d 360 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …s court will affirm a judgment if the record supports affirmance where the district court relied on a wrong ground or applied the wrong reasoning for its judgment. See also Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F. 2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658, 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). I understand the majority opinion here to affirm the decision below on the very grounds relied on by the district court — that there was no denial of due process. See ante at 364-365. I therefore see no need…
• Webb v. City OF Chester, 813 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1987)
  …tion for directed verdict [or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict]* the standard to be applied by the court of appeals is the same as that applied by the trial court.” Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 646 F. 2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658, 70 L.Ed.2d 631 (1981). That standard applied by the district judge, and by us on appeal, is “whether the evidence presented, combined with all the reasonable inferences permissibly drawn therefrom is sufficient to support the verdict…

  ← 1 / 2 →