Legal Opinion
Ohio v. Crofters, Inc.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decided September 13, 1978No. C.A. No. C-4628; C.A. No. 75-F-573; No. 79PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
2Per curiam
The Panel previously centralized several actions in this litigation in the District of Colorado and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re King Resources Com*221pany Securities Litigation, 342 F.Supp. 1179, 352 F.Supp. 974, 352 F.Supp. 975 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1972); 385 F.Supp. 588 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1974).
The above-captioned actions (Boucher and Crofters) involve the State of Ohio’s purchase of $8,000,000 in securities of King Resources Company…
3Cases cited8 opinions
- State of Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Honorable Sherman G. FinesilverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
- In Re Evergreen Valley Project LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1977
- In Re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1976
- State of Ohio v. Crofters, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1977
- In Re King Resources Company Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- In Re: Joann PatenaudepetitionersCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Pickering v. A.L.S. Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2012
- JoAnn PatenaudeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000