TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Melford BERNS v. Bruce O’DELL, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey and David Griese

Fed. SEC. L. Rep. P 99,655 Melford Berns v. Bruce O'dell, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey and David Griese

Melford BERNS v. O’Dell, 726 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 1, 1984
Docket
No. 83-1750
Judges
Bright, McMillian, Arnold
Citations
726 F.2d 4091984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25883

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Melford Berns appeals from a final order entered in the District Court 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of Bruce O’Dell, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey, and David Griese. The district court held that a prior adverse judgment, see E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns, 682 F.2d 173 (8th Cir.1982), collaterally es-topped appellant from proceeding with the present suit.

Berns v. O’Dell, 563 F.Supp. 1201 (E.D.Mo.1983). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

In the present suit appellant seeks treble damages and attorney’s fees from appellees, who were all employees of E.F. Hutton & Co. at the time of the initial stock transactions, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964 , alleging securities fraud committed by use of wire and mail facilities in interstate commerce constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. The’ district court found that the present suit involved the same transactions and the same issue of fraud that had formed the basis of appellant’s securities fraud counterclaim in the earlier action. The district court stated:

[T]he issue litigated and determined in the prior suit adversely to [appellant here] was whether Hutton, through [ap-pellees] O’Dell and Shaw, had made the allegedly false and fraudulent representations in reliance on which Berns pur *410 chased Victoria Station stock. An affirmative finding on this issue is an essential element of any recovery by [appellant] in the present action instituted under !.. [RICO] .... That the claim could not be actionable under RICO absent proof of additional facts such as the use of the mails or wire facilities in furtherance of the alleged scheme to defraud [appellant] is irrelevant.

At 1203. The district court then concluded that appellant was barred by collateral es-toppel from further litigating the issue of fraudulent representations in connection with the Victoria Station stock transactions.

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s allegations of error and find them without merit. We agree with the district court’s collateral estoppel analysis and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the district court. 8th Cir.R. 14.

1

. The Honorable John K. Regan, United States Senior District Judge for the. Eastern District of Missouri.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1987: 22001: 219872026peak 1987 · 2

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
E. F. Hutton & Co. v. Melford Berns, & Lenny Garcia, 682 F.2d 173 (8th Cir. 1982) 11
Berns v. O'Dell, 563 F. Supp. 1201 (E.D. Mo. 1983) 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