TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc.

George F. BURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,949 George F. Burke v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc., 438 F.2d 978 (9th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 9, 1971
Docket
No. 23514
Judges
Tuttle, Merrill, Hufstedler
Citations
438 F.2d 9781971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11964

Opinion — Per Curiam

*979 PER CURIAM:

We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that there was no substantial issue of fact relating to the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The alleged illegal conduct of the appellee-defendant officers and directors of the named corporations related to the purchase by the defendants of the plaintiff-appellant’s stock in the defendant corporations by impermissible means. Such conduct, if it occurred as alleged, is not a violation of the federal statute unless the defendants “directly or indirectly * * * us[ed] * * * any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails * * * in connection with the purchase * * * of any security.”

It is not contended that the mails were used. There was no interstate negotiation or purchase of the plaintiff’s stock. We conclude that there was also no use of an “instrumentality of interstate commerce” within the contemplation of the statute by reason of two local telephone calls to the companies’ counsel who was also an assistant secretary.

All of the facts are undisputed in affidavits or depositions. There was, therefore, no issue to be tried touching on the federal question. The court, therefore, was without jurisdiction.

However, the complaint may have asserted a valid cause of action under state law. The defendants made no effort to support their motion for summary judgment by affidavits negating the allegations of wrong doing. Lest the entry of summary judgment for the defendants be considered as a judgment on the merits of any possible state claim, therefore, we remand the case to the trial court to modify its judgment in such manner as will prevent any prejudice to such right as the plaintiff may have in the state courts.

Judgment affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 21974: 41975: 31981: 11984: 12008: 119732026peak 1974 · 4

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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