Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 24, 2010No. 08-1191Published

1Concurrence

Justice Stevens,

with whom

Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring in the judgment.

While I agree that petitioners have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, my reasoning differs from the Court’s. I would adhere to the general approach that has been the law in the Second Circuit, and most of the rest of the country, for nearly four decades.

I

Today the Court announces a new “transactional test,” ante, at 269, for defining the reach of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U. S. C. §78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5(b) (2009): Henceforth, those…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Ernst & Ernst v. HochfelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API