Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query securities returned 50 results.

	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Concurrence]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES [Dissent]
	CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC V. BILLING [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[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]
	MORRISON V. NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD. [Syllabus]
	ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. V. HALLIBURTON CO. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO [Syllabus]
	[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."
	STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	TELLABS, INC. V. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD. [Syllabus]
	GUSTAFSON V. ALLOYD CO., 513 U.S. 561 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MERCK & CO. V. REYNOLDS [Syllabus]
	MATRIXX INITIATIVES, INC. V. SIRACUSANO [Syllabus]
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	KIRCHER V. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PLAUT V. SPENDTHRIFT FARM, INC., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). [Syllabus]
	DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS [Syllabus]
	JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, INC. V. FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS [Syllabus]
	MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUS. CO., LTD., ET AL. V. EPSTEIN ET AL., 516 U.S. 367 (1996) [Syllabus]
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	[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.
	NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMIN. V. FIRST NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 522 U.S. 479 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NATIONSBANK OF N.C. V. VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INS. CO., 513 U.S. 251 (1995). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	LUJAN V. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MASTROBUONO V. SHEARSON LEHMAN HUTTON, INC., 514 U.S. 52 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUMANA INC. V. FORSYTH [Syllabus]
	JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L. P. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HEMI GROUP, LLC V. CITY OF NEW YORK [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. ESTATE OF ROMANII, 523 U.S. 517 (1998) [Syllabus]
	YEAGER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]