Latta v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 20158.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 20158.,20158. |
| Citation | 356 F.2d 103 |
| Parties | Estelle LATTA, Appellant, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George T. Davis, Jack Leavitt, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Philip A. Loomis, Jr., Gen. Counsel SEC, Walter P. North, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Roy Merenberg, Atty. SEC, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before POPE, JERTBERG and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied May 16, 1966. See 86 S.Ct. 1459.
In this action the Securities and Exchange Commission sought an injunction against Estelle Latta, defendant below, enjoining and restraining the defendant from engaging in acts and practices alleged to constitute violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 (). The plaintiff moved for a summary judgment supporting its motion by affidavits and by deposition of the defendant. The defendant also moved for a summary judgment but filed no affidavit and made no other showing in support thereof or in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
After consideration of the motions and examination of the plaintiff's affidavits and of the deposition, the court found that the undisputed facts disclosed by the affidavits and deposition established that plaintiff was entitled to the injunction sought. The court found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied. The court entered judgment granting the injunction prayed for in the complaint, D.C., 250 F.Supp. 170.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and examination of the record and the oral argument presented to the court we are of the view that the trial court was correct in holding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Commission was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.E.C. v. Murphy
...(CCH) P 97,301; SEC v. Bonastia, 614 F.2d 908, 913 (3d Cir. 1980), as amended, Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) P 97,276; Latta v. SEC, 356 F.2d 103, 103 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 940, 86 S.Ct. 1459, 16 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966). See SEC v. Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 197......
-
Maheu v. Reynolds & Co.
...S. E. C. v. Crude Oil Corp., 93 F.2d 844 (7th Cir. 1937); S. E. C. v. Latta, 250 F.Supp. 170 (N.D.Calif.1965), aff'd per curiam, 356 F.2d 103 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 940, 86 S.Ct. 1459, 16 L.Ed.2d 539 (1966); cf. Lorenz v. Watson, 258 F.Supp. 724 (E.D.Pa.1966). Accordingly, the c......
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mogler
...SEC v. Spence & Green Chemical Co., 612 F.2d 896, 903 (5th Cir. 1980), as amended, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 97, 301; Latta v. SEC, 356 F.2d 103, 103 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 940 (1966). In order to obtain a permanent injunction against the Defendants on summary judgment, the......
-
Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc.
...was a common characteristic of the securities involved. See, e. g., SEC v. Latta, 250 F.Supp. 170 (N.D.Cal.), affirmed per curiam, 356 F.2d 103 (9th Cir. 1965), certiorari denied, 384 U.S. 940, 86 S.Ct. 1459, 16 L.Ed.2d 539 (contracts to assign undivided distributive shares in a decedent's ......
-
Definition of a Security: Risk Capital and Investment Contracts in Washington
...Binder] Blue Sky L. Rep (CCH) ¶ 71,294 (Alaska Dep't of Com. and Econ. Dev. 1976). 58. 250 F. Supp. 170 (N.D. Cal. 1965), affd per curiam, 356 F.2d 103 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 940 (1966). See Coffey, supra note 1, at 382. 59. See note 48 supra. 60. State v. Hawaii Mkt. Center, In......