D.C. Circuit· 9/29/2015

Jarkesy v. Securities & Exchange Commission

Citations

419 U.S. App. D.C. 394
803 F.3d 9
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17115
2015 WL 5692065

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that claims arising “from actions the Commission took in the course of [its administrative] scheme” were not “wholly collateral”
recognizing that granting the court of appeals’ “exclusive jurisdiction” to set aside the agency order shows an intent to preclude district court jurisdiction
recognizing that the “particular challenges” raised by the plaintiff become relevant after the court has found that “Congress meant to channel most challenges to the Commission’s administrative proceedings through the statutory review scheme”
observing that the petitioner's \[discovery] requests might well have met the same result had he attempted them in the district court\
explaining that the administrative process does not \categorically preclude [petitioner] from accessing the evidence he believes he needs\
holding legal claims “inextricably intertwined” with factual claims presented to an agency are not collateral

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Randolph

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

42 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.