Second Circuit· 12/13/1993
Manson v. Stacescu
Citations
- 11 F.3d 1127
- 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32324
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the defendants in Bankers Trust had acted for the “direct purpose” of harming the plaintiffs; however, Bankers Trust involved a direct injury, as discussed above
- distinguishing between fraudulent activity prior to the purchase of securities and fraudulent activity subsequent to the purchase of securities, and indicating that the special duty exception applies only to plaintiffs alleging the former
- “The threats . . . were part of a RICO scheme that was directed at the Company, not [him].”
- injury to creditors from actual diminution in debtor corporation’s assets was indirect
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Tal v. HoganTenth Circuit· 2006-06-29· cited 788×
- Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Second Circuit· 1995-12-28· cited 417×
- Terminate Control Corp. v. HorowitzSecond Circuit· 1994-07-05· cited 323×
- Cusamano v. SobekN.D. New York· 2009-01-26· cited 141×
- In Re American Express Company Shareholder LitigationSecond Circuit· 1994-11-01· cited 138×
- Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.Second Circuit· 1999-04-09· cited 100×
- ABF Capital Management v. Askin Capital Management, L.P.S.D. New York· 1997-01-24· cited 85×
- Tafari v. McCarthyN.D. New York· 2010-05-24· cited 85×
- Hutchinson v. PfeilTenth Circuit· 2000-04-04· cited 76×
- Bingham v. ZoltSecond Circuit· 1995-09-28· cited 39×
- Lakonia Management Ltd. v. MeriwetherS.D. New York· 2000-07-27· cited 25×
- Hamid v. WaterhouseNinth Circuit· 1995-04-07· cited 23×
- Grow Michigan, LLC v. LT Lender, LLCSixth Circuit· 2022-10-07· cited 21×
- Mediavilla v. City of New YorkS.D. New York· 2016-09-29· cited 20×
- Leung v. LawE.D. New York· 2005-05-30· cited 17×
- Jerry Kubecka, Inc. v. AvellinoE.D. New York· 1995-08-30· cited 12×
- GICC Capital Corp. v. Technology Finance Group, Inc.Second Circuit· 1994-07-11· cited 8×
- Kellogg v. Key Bank of Maine (In Re Kellogg)D. Connecticut· 1994-03-31· cited 6×
- Medgar Evers Houses Tenants Ass'n v. Medgar Evers Houses Associates, L.P.E.D. New York· 1998-10-23· cited 6×
- In Re Northern Telecom Ltd. Securities LitigationS.D. New York· 1998-05-06· cited 4×
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court· 1962-12-03· cited 17,205×
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court· 1992-03-24· cited 1,453×
- Bankers Trust Company v. Daniel Rhoades, Herman Soifer and Milton BratenSecond Circuit· 1988-10-03· cited 425×
- Mid-State Fertilizer Co., Lasley Kimmel, and Maxine Kimmel v. Exchange National Bank of ChicagoSeventh Circuit· 1989-06-19· cited 393×
- Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-07-10· cited 331×
- Environmental Control Board of the City of New York v. SterlingSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 159×
- Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. TuckerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-05-07· cited 154×
- Thomas A. Vincel v. White Motor Corporation and Glenn F. KommerSecond Circuit· 1975-08-11· cited 100×
- Manson v. StacescuSecond Circuit· 1993-12-13· cited 57×
- Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video Shack Inc.S.D. New York· 1988-11-09· cited 44×
- Rand v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc.Second Circuit· 1986-07-09· cited 40×
- Nordberg v. Lord, Day & LordS.D. New York· 1985-09-30· cited 30×
- Dana Willis v. Kevin LiptonFirst Circuit· 1991-10-28· cited 23×
- Ceribelli v. ElghanayanSecond Circuit· 1993-04-02· cited 19×
- Sax v. World Wide Press, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1987-02-05· cited 15×
- Manson v. StacescuD. Connecticut· 1993-03-24· cited 3×
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.