Legal Opinion
Goldstein v. Mortenson
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided July 30, 2003No. 03-01-00508-CVPublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LEE YEAKEL, Justice.
Appellees Janet Mortenson, Permanent Receiver for Austin Forex, L.L.C., and Austin Forex International, Inc., along with a class of investors (collectively “Mor-tenson”), brought suit against appellant Boris Goldstein for damages they suffered as a result of a securities-fraud scheme. The district court awarded Mortenson actual and exemplary damages for fraud, usury, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 581-1-581-43 (West 1964 & Supp 2003). Goldstein, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, appeals by seven issues. We reform…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- In Re King's EstateTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- Cain v. BainTexas Supreme Court · 1986
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. HavnerTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Sterling Trust Co. v. AdderleyTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Carone v. Retamco Operating, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2004
- Sparks v. Booth, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2007
- Hoffmann v. Dandurand, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2005
- Morris v. Powell, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2004
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.