Citation_U.S_, 128 S. Ct. 761 (2008) Brief Fact Summary. By agreeing to arrangements that permitted Charter to mislead its auditor and issue a deceiving financial statement affecting its stock price, investors (Plaintiff) in Charter argued that Charter's customers/suppliers (Defendant) violated § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A third-party customer/supplier of a company is not a prime participant, even though its misleading acts are part of a scheme to defraud investors, where investors wishing to bring the act ...
Search Results
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Yun
CitationSEC v. Yun, 327 F.3d 1263, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7155, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P92,408, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 819, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 521 (11th Cir. Fla. Apr. 16, 2003) Brief Fact Summary. Convicted for insider trading violations of § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Yun and Burch (Defendants) argued that the district court was erroneous in schooling the jury on the components of the misappropriation theory of liability for insider trading. Synopsis of Rule of Law. (1) A spouse is obliged to have a duty of fidelity and privacy not to disclose insider informatio ...
Stanley J. How & Assoc., Inc. v. Boss
CitationStanley J. How & Associates, Inc. v. Boss, 222 F. Supp. 936, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6668 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 31, 1963) Brief Fact Summary. Boss (D) entered a contract with How & Assoc. (P) for architectural services on behalf of a corporation not yet founded. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Promoters are liable on contracts they entered into on behalf of a corporation yet formed unless the other party agreed to hold someone else for payment. ...
Robertson v. Levy
CitationRobertson v. Levy, 197 A.2d 443, 1964 D . C. App. LEXIS 298 (D . C. 1964) Brief Fact Summary. Robertson’s (P) business was bought by a corporation formed by Levy (D) at a time when the Articles of Incorporation were being dismissed by the Corporations Commissioner. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Officers and directors are severally liable for acting as agents of a defectively formed corporation including prior to its formation. ...
Frontier Refining Company v. Kunkel’s Inc.
CitationFrontier Ref. Co. v. Kunkel’s, 407 P.2d 880, 1965 Wyo. LEXIS 169 (Wyo. 1965) Brief Fact Summary. Kunkel’s Inc. (D) owed Frontier Refining Company (Frontier) (P). Frontier (P) alleges that Kunkel’s (D) was a partnership made up of Kunkel (D), Beach (D), and Fairfield (D). Beach (D) and Fairfield (D) agreed to loan money to Kunkel (D) so long as Kunkel (D) incorporated the corporation. Kunkel (D) never incorporated, so Frontier (P) sued beach (D) and Fairfield (D) alleging that as purported partners, they were indebted to Frontier (P). Synopsis of Rule o ...
Meinhard v. Salmon
CitationMeinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 164 N.E. 545, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 830, 62 A.L.R. 1 (N.Y. 1928) Brief Fact Summary. Meinhard (P) and Salmon (D) were co-adventurers on a lease to a hotel. Prior to the expiration of the lease, Salmon (D), without Meinhard’s (P) awareness, agreed to lease the same and adjacent property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. While still partnered, joint adventurers owe a duty of finest loyalty and a standard of great discretion towards one another. ...
Rapoport v. 55 Perry Co.
CitationRapoport v. 55 Perry Co., 50 A.D.2d 54, 376 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Dec. 11, 1975) Brief Fact Summary. The Rapoports (P) assigned their partnership and partnership interest with the Parnes (D) to their adult children which they said could be assigned without Parnes’ (D) consent according to the partnership agreement. The Parnes (D) contend that the partnership agreement did not allow the introduction of new partners without the consent of all the existing partners. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The related provision states that ...
Kessler v. Antinora
CitationKessler v. Antinora, 279 N.J. Super. 471, 653 A.2d 579, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 66 (App.Div. Feb. 14, 1995) Brief Fact Summary. Antinora (D) contributed labor and Kessler (P) contributed capital to a joint venture. Antinora (D) contends he is not liable for partnership losses where the partnership agreement did not address how those losses would be apportioned between them. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Neither partner is liable to the other for loss incurred during a joint venture if no provision in the partnership agreement addresses how losses will be apportioned between them, if one p ...
Collins v. Lewis
CitationCollins v. Lewis, 53 Minn. 78, 54 N.W. 1056, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 272 (Minn. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. Lewis (D) persuaded Collins (P) to enter into a partnership operating a cafeteria, but the venture failed to make money allegedly due to Collin’s (P) lack of cooperation. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a partner has not fully performed the obligations imposed on him by the partnership agreement, then that partner may not obtain an order to dissolve the partnership. ...
Stark v. Flemming
CitationStark v. Flemming, 283 F.2d 410, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3535 (9th Cir. Cal. Oct. 20, 1960) Brief Fact Summary. Stark (P) started a corporation and paid herself wages so she could qualify for Social Security. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If corporate formalities have been observed, the form cannot be dismissed unless statutes say otherwise. ...
Katzowitz v. Sidler
CitationKatzowitz v. Sidler, 24 N . Y.2d 512, 249 N.E.2d 359, 301 N . Y.S.2d 470, 1969 N . Y. LEXIS 1338 (N . Y. 1969) Brief Fact Summary. Two out of three directors of a closed corporation voted to purchase another issue of stock, but the third refused. When the assets were sold, and the profits were distributed according to proportion of stock owned, the third director sought to have the distribution nullified. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where new shares are offered in a closed corporation, and existing shareholders do not purchase a share, the shareholders are not estopped from bringing a ...
Torres v. Spesier
CitationTorres v. Speiser, 268 A.D.2d 253, 701 N.Y.S.2d 360, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Jan. 11, 2000) Brief Fact Summary. Torres (P) claims that because his sale of stock was sold at less than par value, the sale is invalid. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The statute that prohibits the initial dispersal of stock in a new corporation for less than par value is inapplicable on the resale of dispersed shares among stockholders. ...
Zion v. Kurtz
CitationZion v. Kurtz, 405 N.E.2d 681, 50 N.Y.2d 92, 428 N.Y.S.2d 199, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2272, 15 A.L.R.4th 1061 (N.Y. Apr. 29, 1980) Brief Fact Summary. Zion (P) sought the enforcement of a shareholder’s agreement that prohibits the corporation from contracting a business transaction without his approval. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Shareholder agreements that require minority shareholder approval of corporate enterprises are enforceable. ...
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows v. Ringling
CitationRingling Bros.–Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Ringling, 53 A.2d 441, 1947 Del. LEXIS 25, 29 Del. Ch. 610 (Del. May 3, 1947) Brief Fact Summary. Ringling (P) and Haley (D) entered a stock pooling agreement by which they agreed to always vote their shares together, Haley (D) however refused to agree on a vote for directors nor vote as directed by the arbitrator provided in the agreement, so Ringling (P) sought enforcement of the arbitrator’s judgment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is lawful for groups of shareholders to contract the way they vote with each other ...
Lee v. Jenkins Bros
CitationLee v. Jenkins Bros., 268 F.2d 357, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4805 (2d Cir. Conn. June 15, 1959) Brief Fact Summary. Jenkins (D) president in 1920 made a promise to Lee (P) when Lee (P) was hired that he would pay Lee (P) a $1,500 pension at age 60, “regardless of what happensâ€. Lee seeks enforcement of this promise. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Presidents have the authority to bind their company to acts in the scope of regular and usual conduct, but not for contracts of extraordinary natures. ...
Phillips v. AWH Corporation
CitationPhillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954, 75 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1321 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2005) Brief Fact Summary. Phillips (Plaintiff) sued AWH Corp. (Defendant) for patent infringement, and contended that the term “baffles” in claim 1 of his patented invention (the ‘798 patent) was not used in a restrictive manner that would exclude structures that extend at a 90-degree angle from walls, and that the plain meaning should be given to the term, rather than limiting the term to corresponding structures disclosed in the patent’s specificati ...
Madey v. Duke University
CitationMadey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20823, 64 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1737 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2002) Brief Fact Summary. Madey (Plaintiff) brought suit against Duke (Defendant) for patent infringement for using his lab equipment. Defendant claimed its use fell within the experimental use exception. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The experimental use defense does not apply to use that is to further the user’s legitimate business and is not only for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or strictly philosophical inquiry. ...
Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc
CitationApotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 254 F.3d 1031, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864, 59 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1139, 2001 WL 630026 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2001) Brief Fact Summary. Apotex (Plaintiff) sued Merck (Defendant) claiming infringement of its patent. Defendant argued they had invented the product in this case before Plaintiff did, and Plaintiff’s patent was therefore invalid. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A patent will not be valid if another party invents the product at issue within the United States before the patent holder and if that party does not abandon, suppress, or ...
Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc.
CitationAl-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5802, 50 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1161 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 1999) Brief Fact Summary. Magnavision (Plaintiff) alleged that VSI (Defendant) infringed its patent for technology for displaying eyeglasses on racks. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Even though a product may avoid literal infringement when it performs an identical function to a patented invention, it may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. ...
eva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
CitationTeva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 482 F.3d 1330, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7383, 82 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1225 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2007) Brief Fact Summary. Novartis (Defendant) sued Teva (Plaintiff) for patent infringement of one of its five patents. Plaintiff sued Defendant in a declaratory judgment action requesting “patent certainty” regarding validity of the other four patents. The action was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as Plaintiff did not face the imminent threat of a suit of infringement o ...
United States v. Aluminum Co. America.
CitationUnited States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 4091, 65 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 6, 1945 Trade Cas. (CCH) P57,342 (2d Cir. N.Y. Mar. 12, 1945) Brief Fact Summary. A suit against the Aluminum Co. of America (D) and Aluminum Limited (D), a Canadian corporation formed to take over the properties of Aluminum Co. of America (D) outside the United States, by the United States (P) on the premise of contravening the Sherman Act by the participation of each company in a foreign cartel called the Alliance. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any state may impose liabilities even upon ...
Sahin v. Turkey
View this case and other resources at: Citation. Eur. Ct. of Human Rights, App. No. 44774/98, 44 Eur. H.R. Rep. 99 (2005) Brief Fact Summary. A Turkish Muslim by the name Sahin (P) alleged that the Republic of Turkey (D) violated her rights and freedom under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by banning the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in institutions of higher education. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Students rights and freedom under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are not violated when a secular country pla ...
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California
CitationHartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal., 509 U.S. 764, 113 S. Ct. 2891, 125 L. Ed. 2d 612, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4404, 61 U.S.L.W. 4855, 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70,280, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4830, 93 Daily Journal DAR 8186, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 638 (U.S. June 28, 1993) Brief Fact Summary. An action under the Sherman Act against Hartford (D) was filed by the California (P) on the ground that Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (D) and other London-based reinsurers (D) had allegedly engaged in unlawful conspiracies to affect the market for insurance in the United States, but the reinsurers (D) sought ...
United States v. Belmont
CitationUnited States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 57 S. Ct. 758, 81 L. Ed. 1134, 1937 U.S. LEXIS 293 (U.S. May 3, 1937) Brief Fact Summary. The U.S. (P) claim was based on the fact that funds deposited in a U.S. bank by a Russian corporation that had been nationalized by the Soviet government was due to it. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The states cannot interfere in the complete powers which the national government has in the conduct of international affairs. ...