United States v. Naftalin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that punctuation is not always decisive, but finding significant “the use of separate numbers to introduce each subsection, and the fact that the phrase ... was set off solely as part of [a separate] subsection”
• recognizing that § 1692f(1) does not require proof that the unauthorized amounts were debts
• holding that placing orders with brokers for the sale of stock a defendant did not actually own constituted fraud in the offer and sale of securities in violation of § 77q(a)(l
• stating that the Supreme Court has often used § 17(a)’s phrase “in” interchangeably with § 10(b)’s phrase “in connection with”
• observing that placement of phrase in separate subsection indicates phrase was not intended to modify earlier subsections
• observing that placement of phrase in separate subsection indicates phrase was not intended to modify earlier subsections

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).