Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ross

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that intervention “puts the intervenor in the position he would have been in had the plaintiff (or another party) properly named him to begin with”
• holding that summary proceedings were inappropriate where the SEC’s disgorgement motion was premised on illegal behavior by the nonparty against which the motion had been brought
• holding that a court lacked jurisdiction over a defendant who was never served with or named as a party in the federal-law complaint, despite statute's nationwide service of process provision
• holding that relief defendants who were employed as sales agents for a company that violated securities laws had \presumptive title\ to the commissions they \received [as] compensation in return for services rendered\
• stating that an employee or vendor who receives compensation in return for services rendered has “presumptive title” to payments
• explaining that “in the absence of proper service of process, the district court has no power to render any judgment against the defendant’s person or property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).