Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the availability of an expressed remedy under section 11 of the Securities Act did not preclude plaintiff from maintaining an action under section 10b of the Exchange Act
• holding that action under sections 11 and 10(b) may arise from same disclosure
• noting that this canon is “subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose.”
• stating that the same conduct may be actionable under sections 10(b) and 11
• stating that “[i]n furtherance of its objective, § 10(b) makes it unlawful to use ‘any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance’ in connection with the purchase or sale of any security” (emphasis in original)
• observing that such canons of construction as “expressio unius est exclusio alteráis” have long been “subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).