TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Howard James Hansen, D/B/A H. J. Hansen and Company, and Howard J. Hansen, Individually v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Howard James HANSEN, D/B/A H. J. Hansen and Company, and Howard J. Hansen, Individually, Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent

Hansen v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 396 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 14, 1968
Docket
No. 21282_1
Judges
Miller, Burger, Wright
Citations
396 F.2d 694

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Hansen asks review of a Securities and Exchange Commission order 1

which denied his application for registration as a securities broker and found petitioner responsible, in part, for the revocation of the registration of Atlantic Equities Company. The only question raised on this appeal is whether the testimonial record of a prior proceeding 2

against Atlantic, involving the same stock fraud on which the Commission’s order against petitioner was based, was properly admitted into evidence in this proceeding. Since the witnesses who testified in the prior proceeding were *695 made available to petitioner for cross-examination, we find no error.

3

The rules applicable to conventional judicial proceedings are not necessarily applicable to administrative proceedings. In a matter such as this one, involving charges of fraud and manipulation in the issuance of stock, with a lengthy record, it was within the Commission’s discretion to receive the transcribed testimony, while still comporting with fairness to petitioner by offering the opportunity to cross-examine any witness whose transcribed testimony was so received.

Affirmed.

1

. The Commission’s order was issued pursuant to § 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(b) (1964 ed.).

2

. Petitioner was notified in the prior proceeding that, as an associate of Atlantic, under Commission Rule 9(b) he had a right to participate. 17 C.F.R. § 201 .-9(b) (Supp.1968). He declined.

See Wallach v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 108 , 202 F.2d 462 (1953).

3

.

See A.L.I., Model Code of Evidence, Rule 503 (1942); 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1362, 1365, 1395 (3d ed. 1940).

See also Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 705-706 , 68 S.Ct. 793 , 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948); Freight Consolidators Cooperative, Inc. v. United States, S.D.N.Y., 230 F.Supp. 692, 699 (1964); Garner v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 177 Pa.Super. 439 , 110 A.2d 907 (1955).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683 (1948) 613
Garner v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 110 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1955) 20
Wallach v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 202 F.2d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1953) 12
Freight Consolidators Coop., Inc. v. United States, 230 F. Supp. 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 9
Capital Transit Co. v. Platshon, 202 F.2d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1953) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list