Karsner v. Lothian

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that SEC approval of National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) rules did not bring all rules questions within § 78aa grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction
• stating that the demand approach is based off of “the amount sought in the underlying arbitration”
• stating that FINRA has “express statutory authority to adjudicate actions against members who are accused of illegal securities practices.”
• explaining that, “before a judgment may be deemed void within the meaning of [Rule 60(b)(4) ], it must be determined that the rendering court was powerless to enter it”
• explaining that, “before a judgment may be deemed void 40 within the meaning of [Rule 60(b)(4)], it must be determined that the rendering court was powerless to enter it”
• noting that because the intervenor was \not seeking to intervene as a plaintiff . . . section 1367(b) does not bar . . . intervention as of right\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).