N.D. West Virginia· 9/23/1983
Bauman v. Bish
Citations
- 571 F. Supp. 1054
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that an employee stock option plan was “compulsory” where “there [was] no affirmative investment decision” made by the individual employee
- “The notion that the exchange of labor will suffice to constitute the type of investment which the Securities Acts were intended to regulate was rejected in Daniel.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Maxwell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISAS.D. Texas· 2003-10-16· cited 114×
- Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc.District of Columbia· 1986-01-15· cited 51×
- Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1991-07-12· cited 48×
- McLendon v. Continental Group, Inc.D. New Jersey· 1985-01-22· cited 46×
- Kevin Lampkin v. UBS Painewebber, Inc., etFifth Circuit· 2019-05-24· cited 43×
- Childers v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.D. Minnesota· 1988-06-23· cited 30×
- Dubin v. E.F. Hutton Group Inc.S.D. New York· 1988-09-07· cited 28×
- In Re Cendant Corp. Securities LitigationD. New Jersey· 1999-12-07· cited 27×
- 26 Fair empl.prac.cas. 425, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,613 John S. Ford, Willie Cain v. United States Steel Corporation, Etc.Fifth Circuit· 1981-03-02· cited 20×
- Hood v. Smith's Transfer Corp.W.D. Kentucky· 1991-04-25· cited 17×
- Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & \Erisa\ Litigation v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc.S.D. Texas· 2017-02-28· cited 17×
- In Re Cendant Corp. Securities LitigationD. New Jersey· 2000-02-01· cited 8×
- Register v. Cameron & Barkley Co.D. South Carolina· 2006-11-03· cited 5×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 3,533×
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court· 1975-10-06· cited 2,261×
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. DanielSupreme Court· 1979-01-16· cited 536×
- First National Maintenance Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 387×
- National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1956-05-07· cited 329×
- Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court· 1979-03-05· cited 309×
- Alan B. Morrison v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Corporation in U. S. A., S. & R. Inc., D/B/A Vob Datsun SalesFourth Circuit· 1979-06-25· cited 269×
- American Federation of Musicians v. WittsteinSupreme Court· 1964-12-07· cited 92×
- Richard W. Bosse v. Crowell Collier and MacMillanNinth Circuit· 1977-12-06· cited 89×
- John Daniel v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of AmericaSeventh Circuit· 1977-08-20· cited 88×
- Mark Green and Corporate Accountability Research Group v. Department of CommerceD.C. Circuit· 1980-03-04· cited 65×
- Emeryville Research Center, Shell Development Company, a Division of Shell Oil Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardNinth Circuit· 1971-04-14· cited 46×
- Blanchard v. JohnsonSixth Circuit· 1976-04-02· cited 38×
- Local No. 92, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Afl-Cio v. M. E. Norris, H. L. Thacker v. M. E. NorrisFifth Circuit· 1967-10-02· cited 28×
- General Electric Company v. National Labor Relations BoardFourth Circuit· 1969-08-28· cited 25×
- Brink v. DaLesioD. Maryland· 1978-04-05· cited 19×
- Baker v. Data Dynamics, Inc.W.D. North Carolina· 1983-04-15· cited 14×
- Newman v. Local 1101Second Circuit· 1978-01-26· cited 13×
- Green v. Department of CommerceDistrict of Columbia· 1979-03-30· cited 9×
- Miner v. CalifanoSupreme Court· 1979-10-01· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.