N.D. Illinois· 6/9/1995

In Re Soybean Futures Litigation

Citations

892 F. Supp. 1025
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13924
1995 WL 382308

How courts have described this case

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

stating “Congress’ decision to prohibit manipulation without defining it apparently arose from the concern that clever manipulators would be able to evade any legislated list of proscribed actions or elements of such a claim”
“The court recognizes that a manipulation claim requires a showing of specific intent, that is, a showing that ‘the accused acted (or failed to act) with the purpose or conscious object’ of influencing prices.”
“When these alleged misrepresentations are factored into their alleged ability to influence prices, on might reasonably infer that [defendants might not have required as large a position in the * * * market as would a manipulator relying on market power alone.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norgle, Pallmeyer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

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.