Legal Opinion

Antinoph v. Laverell Reynolds Securities, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided January 17, 1989No. Civ. A. 88-3664PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HUTTON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of approximately $400,000 in damages for securities which they purportedly lost because of the fraudulent practices and securities laws violations of the defendants. Pending before this court are motions by the Laverell firm, Judson D. Laverell and Roger A. Reynolds (hereinafter referred to as the “Laverell defendants”) and Broadcort Corp. (hereinafter referred to as “Broadcort”), to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to plead fraud with particularity. In…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Chiarella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Cooper v. PateSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. MacAulay v. NorlanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Jairett v. First Montauk Securities Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Leder v. ShinfeldDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Burns v. Richfield Securities, Inc.District Court, D. Utah · 1992
  5. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. CentlivreDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993

4 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