Supreme Court· 5/19/1976

Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder

Citations

425 U.S. 185
96 S. Ct. 1375
47 L. Ed. 2d 668
1976 U.S. LEXIS 2

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “manipulative,” “device,” and “contrivance” in § 10(b) “connot[e] intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive or defraud investors”
holding that scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud” is an essential element of a § 10b/Rule 1b-5 claim
ruling that the scope of Rule 10b-5 cannot exceed the power granted to the S.E.C. by Congress in section 10(b)
holding that § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires proof of scienter and does not impose liability for negligent conduct alone
holding that no “private cause of action for damages will lie under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 in the absence of any allegation of ‘scienter’ — intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud”
holding that the term scienter refers to a mental state embracing an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Powell, Burgee, Stewart, White, Marshall, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,749 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.