Legal Opinion
Kimmel v. Peterson
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 27, 1983No. Civ. A. 82-2752PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
Various defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in this action. For the reasons which follow, their motions shall be granted in part and denied in part.
This now complex securities fraud case had rather humble beginnings. On June 25, 1982, Murray Kimmel filed a four page, two count complaint against John Peterson, alleging a violation of section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and common law fraud. However, this relative simplicity was short-lived. On September 10, 1982, an amended complaint was filed. Dr. Kimmel was joined by four other plaintiffs —…
2Cases cited106 opinions
- Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. TurketteSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- SEDIMA, S.P.R.L., Appellant, v. IMREX COMPANY, INC., Gidon Armon and Jacob Armon, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
- CPC International Inc. v. McKessonNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation. Henry Puchall v. Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & RileyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- In Re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- The Ltd., Inc. v. McCrory Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.