Legal Opinion
Muth v. Dechert, Price & Rhoads
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 14, 1975No. Civ. A. 74-1931PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIS, Senior District Judge.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs are shareholders who have brought a class action against Deehert, Price & Rhoads (“Dechert”), Main, LaFrentz & Co. (“Main, LaFrentz”) and Frederick Taylor (“Taylor”) arising out of the sale of the stock of United Municipal Incinerator Corporation (“UMIC”), subsequently Scienscope, during the period February 11, 1969 to December 2, 1970. The defendants are a law firm (Dechert), an accounting firm (Main, LaFrentz), and an individual attorney (Taylor), all of whom are alleged to be liable for violation of § 10(b) of the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,590 David Segal v. Lawrence Gordon, and Coburn Corporation of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- Landy v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- DeHaas v. Empire Petroleum CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1968
- Gomes v. BrodhurstCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Huddleston v. Herman & MacLeanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Farmers Bank of State of Del. v. Bell Mtg. Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1978
- Seiler v. E.F. Hutton & Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984
- Doyle v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1977
- McLean v. AlexanderDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.