AMERICAN FERMAC, INC., ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (29 total)

• Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990)
  …weight of Circuit authority, is that district courts may enforce Rule 11 even after the plaintiff has filed a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). See Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F. 2d 1073, 1076-1079 (CA7 1987), cert. dism’d, 485 U. S. 901 (1988); Greenberg v. Sala, 822 F. 2d 882, 885 (CA9 1987); Muthig v. Brant Point Nantucket, Inc., 838 F. 2d 600, 603-604 (CA1 1988). The district court’s jurisdiction, invoked by the filing of the underlying complaint, supports consideration of both…
• Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 892 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1990)
  …this property interest must be more than a unilateral expectation—it must be a legitimate claim of entitlement. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709; Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F. 2d 1073, 1080 (7th Cir.1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 901, 108 S.Ct. 1101, 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988). Finally, “[pjroperty interests ... are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law_” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Smith v. Duff & Phelps, Inc., 891 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …on’s plans to go public were irrelevant to the repurchase. Therefore, the court found no section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 violations. Id. at 447. 3. The “Duty to Disclose” Approach In Jordan v. Duff & Phelps, 815 F. 2d 429 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 901, 108 S.Ct. 1067, 99 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988), the Seventh Circuit held that Duff & Phelps did have a duty to disclose before repurchasing an employee’s stock. Id. at 434. Bound by the same repurchase restriction as the one involved in the present case,12…