John Psimenos v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts need not “reach the question whether the effects test provides an independent basis for jurisdiction” when there is jurisdiction under the conduct test
• holding that the lawfulness of the domestic transactions does not prevent them from being material to the fraud’s completion
• noting that courts have analogized the CEA to the SEA, which has been more extensively litigated
• explaining that a futures contract “has no lawful existence or being independent of the designated contract market upon which it is traded” (citation omitted)
• finding subject matter jurisdiction because the acts that consummated the alleged fraudulent transaction occurred in the United States, thus directly causing the losses claimed
• finding jurisdiction based on conduct and declining to address whether effects test supplied “an independent basis for jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).