Legal Opinion
SCOPE IND. v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
District Court, C.D. California
Decided December 6, 1983No. CV 83-6048 AWTPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TASHIMA, District Judge.
This is an action for malicious prosecution based on defendants’ conduct as counsel for plaintiff in Avnet, Inc. v. Scope Industries, 499 F.Supp. 1121 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (the “underlying action”). In the underlying action, Avnet sued to secure additional public disclosures under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), alleging violations of sections 13(d), 15 U.S.C. § 78m(d) (requiring certain public disclosures), 14(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a) (regulating proxy solicitation) and 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (proscribing manipulative…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Carl E. Berg v. Hayden Leason Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe Paul AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Western Capital & Securities, Inc. v. KnudsvigCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1989
- Nill v. Essex Group, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1994