Ninth Circuit· 9/11/1996

Provenz v. Miller

Citations

102 F.3d 1478
1996 WL 724413

How courts have described this case

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

holding that 20% of individual defendant’s holdings raised an inference of scienter
holding that the district court erred when the defendants presented new evidence in a reply brief and the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and plaintiffs’ surreply
holding that the district court erred when the defendants presented new evidence in a reply brief and the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike and plaintiffs’ surreply
holding that 5 “[w]here new evidence is presented in a reply . . . the district court should not consider 6 the new evidence without giving the [non-]movant an opportunity to respond.”
holding that “[w]here new evidence is presented in a 26 reply . . . the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [non- ]movant an opportunity to respond”
noting that defendants’ violation of the company’s own policies when recognizing revenue for certain transactions supported an inference of scienter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Goodwin, Kozinski, Pregerson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

180 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.