TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company

The FRANKLIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,890 the Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 598 F.2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 27, 1979
Docket
No. 78-1896
Judges
Pell, Bauer, Noland
Citations
598 F.2d 1109

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This action arose out of the issuance and subsequent redemption of one million shares of 9.44% Cumulative Prior Preferred Stock at a par value of $100 per share by the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged violations of §§ 11 and 17 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77q, and § 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 *1110 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5, promulgated thereunder. They also alleged a breach of contract claim based on the redemption terms in the prospectus and in the defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, and a third party beneficiary claim based on the defendant’s alleged violation of its listing agreement with the New York Stock Exchange.

After trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant on all counts and issued a thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order addressing each issue. 451 F.Supp. 602 (S.D.I11.1978). The issues on appeal are virtually identical to those before the district court. Because we are of the opinion that the district court reached the correct result for the proper reasons, we adopt as our own that court’s opinion except for the last paragraph on page 615 and the first paragraph on page 616. These two paragraphs are not essential to the result, and accordingly we do not deem it appropriate to reach the issue there addressed.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1981: 11982: 21983: 31985: 11986: 11987: 11989: 11990: 11992: 11995: 11998: 219812026peak 1983 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.570 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)
  2. Dungan v. Colt Industries, Inc.532 F. Supp. 832 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
  3. Lucas v. Florida Power & Light Co.575 F. Supp. 552 (S.D. Fla. 1983)
  4. Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston459 U.S. 375 (1983)
  5. Bruce Lippo, D/B/A "Walden-Woodfield Service Station," v. Mobil Oil Corporation776 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1985)
  6. Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.545 F. Supp. 1314 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Mutual Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. James River Corp.716 So. 2d 1172 (Ala. 1998)
  2. Mutual Savings Life Insurance v. James River Corp.716 So. 2d 1170 (Ala. 1998) · Dissent
  3. Stack v. Lobo903 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
  4. Moore v. Lomas Mortg. USA796 F. Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
  5. Ronald Thompson v. Amoco Oil Company, a Maryland Corporation903 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir. 1990)
  6. FMC Corp. v. Boesky727 F. Supp. 1182 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Franklin Life Ins. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 451 F. Supp. 602 (S.D. Ill. 1978) 18

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