Joslyn v. Joslyn
Joslyn v. Joslyn, 390 U.S. 951 (1968)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 10 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(allowing recovery of unrealized profits “where the jury finds that with full disclosure [the plaintiff] would have retained [the stock] until the higher price gained by the wrongdoer was reached.”)
-
("Rescission calls for cancellation of the bargain, and the return of the parties to the status quo ante ; ... (b)
-
(the liability of controlling persons “is governed neither by principles of agency nor conspiracy.” Id. at 738)
-
(“[T]here is no duty to disclose information to one who reasonably should already be aware of it.”)
-
(jury instructed to consider before determining damages whether upon full disclosure plaintiffs would have still sold but at a higher price or would have retained stock)
-
(Section 20(a) requires “only some indirect means of discipline or influence short of actual direction to hold a ‘controlling person’ liable,” meaning that “ ‘control’ under the Act does not require knowledge of the specific wrongdoing”)
-
(respondeat superior available in Third Circuit under facts of case)
-
(defendant need have no knowledge of specific wrongdoing)
Cited by 247 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals110
- Federal District Courts123
- Bankruptcy Courts3
- State Highest Courts5
- State Appellate Courts3
- State Trial Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,512 Marvyn Gould, of the Estate of J. Donald Rogasner, in No. 75-1338. v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Company
- American General Insurance v. Equitable General Corp.
- Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc.
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,048 Milton E. Dupuy v. Clarence O. Dupuy, Jr.
- Nelson v. Serwold
- Rochez Bros., Inc. v. Rhoades
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.