Stevens v. EQUIDYNE EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES 1980

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing securities fraud suit against accountant, because statements in accountant’s opinion letter “set forth that they [were] based on supplied facts, [and] additionally state[d] that there is no implication that the results predicted can or will be achieved”
• accountants and attorney not insiders, “therefore the relaxed standards of pleading with respect to who said what do not apply”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).