Dobbins v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that party who failed to move for a continu- ance for additional discovery before summary judgment ruling was “fore- closed from arguing that she did not have adequate time for discovery”
• holding that “[p]etitioners waive the right to object in 11 collateral proceedings unless they make a proper objection before the district court or in a 12 direct appeal from the sentencing decision”
• finding that representations made at road shows were immaterial “since they are contradicted by plain and prominently displayed language in the prospectuses.”
• finding that language in prospectus “fully disclosed the risk of investment and was specific enough to warrant a reasonable investor’s attention”
• stating that claim which amounted to an allegation that defendants were less skillful at balancing the portfolio than plaintiffs would have liked was not actionable under the securities laws
• finding that assurances “were balanced by extensive cautionary language” and thus bespoke caution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).