Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query sec or securities returned 42 results.

	SEC V. ZANDFORD [Syllabus] Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
	SEC V. EDWARDS [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA DEP'T OF REVENUE V. LOEWENSTEIN, 115 S. CT. 557, 130 L. ED. 2D (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	MOSKAL V. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 103 (1990) [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Opinion]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS [Syllabus] A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	DELAWARE V. NEW YORK, 507 U.S. 490 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SWIFT V. TYSON [Opinion]
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [Syllabus]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Opinion]
	MURPHY V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Opinion]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	DAMES & MOORE V. REGAN [Opinion]
	FRANKLIN V. GWINNETT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. DARBY [Opinion]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [Opinion]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Syllabus]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. BROWN [Dissent]
	LAMPF V. GILBERTSON, 501 U.S. 350 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	LOEWE V. LAWLOR [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	WICKARD V. FILBURN [Opinion]
	SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Dissent]
	ALDEN V. MAINE [Dissent]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AIR COURIER CONFERENCE V. POSTAL WORKERS, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. [Syllabus] A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
	GOLLUST V. MENDELL, 501 U.S. 115 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KAMEN V. KEMPER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ARCADIA V. OHIO POWER CO., 498 U.S. 73 (1990) [Syllabus]
	FURMAN V. GEORGIA [Dissent]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Syllabus]
	MULFORD V. SMITH [Opinion]
	MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND [Opinion]
	BRANZBURG V. HAYES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PINK [Opinion]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Dissent]
	OREGON V. MITCHELL []
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Dissent]
	COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12 [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY [Syllabus]
	BOB JONES UNIV. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY [Opinion]
	APTHEKER V. SECRETARY OF STATE [Dissent]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. PALMER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	BARENBLATT V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION [Dissent]
	HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL [Dissent]
	CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. V. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. [Opinion]
	STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE [Syllabus]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	TEXAS V. WHITE [Opinion]
	REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CAL. V. BAKKE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	BIGELOW V. VIRGINIA [Dissent]
	PROPRIETORS OF CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. PROPRIETORS OF WARREN BRIDGE [Dissent]
	STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS V. NORRIS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WARD [Dissent]
	SWIFT AND COMPANY V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	DENNIS V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Concurrence]
	FLETCHER V. PECK [Syllabus]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	CLINTON V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	SEC V. ZANDFORD [Syllabus] Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SEC V. EDWARDS [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
	[Syllabus]
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER V. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, 114 S. CT. 1439, (1994) [Syllabus]
	ARCADIA V. OHIO POWER CO., 498 U.S. 73 (1990) [Syllabus]
	NEBRASKA DEP'T OF REVENUE V. LOEWENSTEIN, 115 S. CT. 557, 130 L. ED. 2D (1994) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES DEP'T OF TREASURY V. FABE, 508 U.S. 491 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	MOSKAL V. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 103 (1990) [Syllabus]
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WHARF (HOLDINGS) LTD. V. UNITED INT’LHOLDINGS, INC. SYLLABUS [Syllabus] A company that sells an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor the option violates §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
	DELAWARE V. NEW YORK, 507 U.S. 490 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU, 508 U.S. 286 (1993). [Syllabus]
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). [Syllabus]
	LAMPF V. GILBERTSON, 501 U.S. 350 (1991) [Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	GILMER V. INTERSTATE/JOHNSON LANE CORP., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DOL V. GREENWICH COLLIERIES, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 501 U.S. 129 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	AIR COURIER CONFERENCE V. POSTAL WORKERS, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) [Syllabus]
	JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. V. HARRIS TRUST & SAV. BANK, 510 U.S. 86 (1993). [Syllabus]
	HOWSAM V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. [Syllabus] A National Association of Securities Dealers arbitrator, rather than a court, should apply the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's time limit rule to a client's dispute with a broker.
	GOLLUST V. MENDELL, 501 U.S. 115 (1991) [Syllabus]
	KAMEN V. KEMPER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA BANKSHARES, INC. V. SANDBERG, 501 U.S. 1083 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]