S.D. Iowa· 1/8/1974
Marshall v. Lamson Bros. & Co.
Citations
- 368 F. Supp. 486
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- emphasis on \pooling\ of funds in Milnarik -sense is too strict or literal limitation on definition of \investment contract\
- emphasis on “pooling” of funds in Milnarik -sense is too strict or literal limitation on definition of “investment contract”
- emphasis on “pooling” of funds in Milnarik found to be a too strict or literal limitation on definition of “investment contract”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stuart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,710 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1974-07-15· cited 213×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,724 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Continental Commodities CorporationFifth Circuit· 1974-07-17· cited 114×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,167 William F. Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc., John Burlington, and Glenn AndersenSeventh Circuit· 1977-09-06· cited 91×
- Troyer v. KarcagiS.D. New York· 1979-07-11· cited 60×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,368 Joe G. Moody v. Bache & Co., Incorporated and Bob PetersFifth Circuit· 1978-03-30· cited 53×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,957 United States of America v. Luigi M. Di FonzoSeventh Circuit· 1979-10-15· cited 41×
- J. J. Curran v. Merrill LynchSixth Circuit· 1980-05-12· cited 38×
- Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 1980-05-12· cited 38×
- Raymond Lee Organization, Inc. v. Division of SecuritiesSupreme Court of Colorado· 1976-11-15· cited 16×
- Jenson v. Continental Financial CorporationD. Minnesota· 1975-11-19· cited 14×
- Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Associated Underwriters, Inc.D. Utah· 1975-05-07· cited 14×
- EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. SchankD. Utah· 1976-11-22· cited 13×
- Christensen Hatch Farms, Inc. v. Peavey Co.D. Minnesota· 1981-01-13· cited 10×
- Rochkind v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.D. Maryland· 1975-01-08· cited 9×
- Gridley v. Sayre & Fisher Co.D. South Dakota· 1976-03-24· cited 8×
- EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. BurkholderDistrict of Columbia· 1976-05-19· cited 6×
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court· 1946-10-14· cited 1,616×
- Tcherepnin v. KnightSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 878×
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.Supreme Court· 1943-11-22· cited 680×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,748 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1973-02-01· cited 399×
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Variable Annuity Life InsuranceSupreme Court· 1959-03-23· cited 231×
- State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1920-05-28· cited 105×
- Jalil v. HamptonSupreme Court· 1972-10-10· cited 100×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,355 Ella Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and David S. NelsonSeventh Circuit· 1972-03-13· cited 98×
- Continental Marketing Corporation v. Securities and Exchange CommissionTenth Circuit· 1967-12-26· cited 79×
- J.C. Booth v. Peavey Company Commodity ServicesEighth Circuit· 1970-08-27· cited 56×
- Maheu v. Reynolds & Co.S.D. New York· 1968-03-12· cited 42×
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. PayneS.D. New York· 1940-11-15· cited 42×
- Berman v. Orimex Trading, Inc.S.D. New York· 1968-07-24· cited 34×
- Wasnowic v. Chicago Board of TradeM.D. Pennsylvania· 1972-11-17· cited 34×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1922-12-29· cited 34×
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. WickhamD. Minnesota· 1935-09-17· cited 30×
- Stuckey v. duPont Globe Forgan Inc.N.D. California· 1973-03-23· cited 12×
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.