Legal Opinion
Rowe v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided December 20, 1999No. CIV. A. 98-5764 (AJL)PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LECHNER, District Judge.
Margaret A. Rowe and Peter Rowe (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated (the “Proposed Class”), filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. (“Dean Witter”)1 and Thomas Mullooly (“Mullooly”), (collectively, the “Defendants”) on 22 December 1998. The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 77q(a), 78j(b) and 78o(c)(l) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the Rules promulgated thereunder, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)…
2Cases cited109 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- The Robert N. Clemens Trust v. Morgan Stanley Dw, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- Rogan v. Giant Eagle, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- Rockey v. Courtesy Motors, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2001
- South Broward Hospital District v. Medquist Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007
- Robert McCrary v. Stifel, Nicolaus & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.