59 Cited authorities

Tellabs v. Makor Issues Rights
551 U.S. 308 (2007) Cited 9,118 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"
Duncan v. Walker
533 U.S. 167 (2001) Cited 5,469 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,416 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
552 U.S. 148 (2008) Cited 1,181 times 80 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"
Ernst Ernst v. Hochfelder
425 U.S. 185 (1976) Cited 3,485 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”
TRW Inc. v. Andrews
534 U.S. 19 (2001) Cited 1,185 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee
531 U.S. 341 (2001) Cited 1,184 times 80 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA
Corley v. United States
556 U.S. 303 (2009) Cited 756 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous"
Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.
672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 2,977 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state "has a specific, concrete interest in eliminating any deceptive practices that may have contributed to" a housing crisis
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (2000) Cited 983 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions
Section 78u - Investigations and actions
15 U.S.C. § 78u Cited 2,256 times 85 Legal Analyses
Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Exchange Act
Section 78bb - Effect on existing law
15 U.S.C. § 78bb Cited 906 times 30 Legal Analyses
Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933
Section 77r - Exemption from State regulation of securities offerings
15 U.S.C. § 77r Cited 201 times 9 Legal Analyses
Recognizing state authority to regulate offerings of securities that are completely intra-state
Section 78u-1 - Civil penalties for insider trading
15 U.S.C. § 78u-1 Cited 188 times 9 Legal Analyses
Using trading price of the security a reasonable period after public dissemination of the nonpublic information
Section 77h-1 - Cease-and-desist proceedings
15 U.S.C. § 77h-1 Cited 20 times 14 Legal Analyses
(a) Authority of Commission If the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that any person is violating, has violated, or is about to violate any provision of this subchapter, or any rule or regulation thereunder, the Commission may publish its findings and enter an order requiring such person, and any other person that is, was, or would be a cause of the violation, due to an act or omission the person knew or should have known would contribute to such violation, to cease and

The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

59 Cited authorities

Holding that a strong inference is one that is "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference"

Holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendancy of a federal petition

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Holding that the fraud-on-the-market presumption did not apply because business partners' "deceptive acts were not communicated to the public"

Holding that Section 9(f) “contains a state-of-mind condition requiring something more than negligence”

Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”

Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

Holding that a "statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous"

Holding that a state "has a specific, concrete interest in eliminating any deceptive practices that may have contributed to" a housing crisis

Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

Granting the SEC the power to seek civil penalties for violations of the Exchange Act

Adopting definition of "covered security" found in paragraphs and of section 18(b) of the Securities Act of 1933

Recognizing state authority to regulate offerings of securities that are completely intra-state

Using trading price of the security a reasonable period after public dissemination of the nonpublic information