Kittilson v. Ford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that coordination with federal courts interpreting federal securities law “does not require imitation” by Washington courts “in construing [Washington’s securities] act, only that [Washington’s] construction not interfere with the federal scheme”
• concluding scienter is not required to prove a violation of the Washington equivalent of HRS §§ 485-25(a)(l) to (3)
• concluding scienter is not required to prove a violation of the Washington equivalent of HRS §§ 485-25(a)(1) to (3)
• declining to read scienter requirement into Washington State Securities Act and distinguishing cases interpreting § 10(b
• scien-ter not required in action for fraud or misrepresentation under Securities Act
• “The coordination of the federal courts with federal regulations does not require imitation by this court in construing our act, only that our construction not interfere with the federal scheme.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).