33 Cited authorities

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,512 times 178 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Hudson v. United States
522 U.S. 93 (1997) Cited 1,445 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must examine a statute "'on its face'" and may not consider the "'actual sanctions imposed'"
United States v. Bajakajian
524 U.S. 321 (1998) Cited 1,408 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that forfeiture 70 times the Guidelines maximum and greater than the statutory maximum would be unconstitutionally excessive
Austin v. United States
509 U.S. 602 (1993) Cited 1,395 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 and are subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research
401 U.S. 321 (1971) Cited 2,555 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that Clayton Act claims "accrue[] and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff's business"
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.
527 U.S. 308 (1999) Cited 814 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract
Securities v. Zandford
535 U.S. 813 (2002) Cited 532 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the SEC may bring a public enforcement action against a broker who accepted payment for securities that he never delivered
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
372 U.S. 144 (1963) Cited 1,801 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "[a]bsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute, these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face"
Alexander v. United States
509 U.S. 544 (1993) Cited 552 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that in personam criminal forfeiture is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.
348 U.S. 483 (1955) Cited 2,218 times
Holding that, absent invidious discrimination, government may further its legitimate interests incrementally
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,896 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 94,812 times 92 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,128 times 335 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices
15 U.S.C. § 78j Cited 12,789 times 167 Legal Analyses
Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities
Section 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
18 U.S.C. § 983 Cited 2,871 times 8 Legal Analyses
Noting that for purposes of the innocent owner defense to civil forfeiture, "no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess"
Section 2462 - Time for commencing proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 2462 Cited 718 times 262 Legal Analyses
Allowing exception to five-year limitations period where Congress has provided otherwise

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Amerindo Investment Advisors Inc. et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

Holding that courts must examine a statute "'on its face'" and may not consider the "'actual sanctions imposed'"

Holding that forfeiture 70 times the Guidelines maximum and greater than the statutory maximum would be unconstitutionally excessive

Holding that forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 and are subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause

Holding that Clayton Act claims "accrue[] and the statute begins to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff's business"

Holding that preliminary injunctive relief freezing defendants' assets was not warranted because injunctive relief was historically unavailable where plaintiff sought only money damages for breach of contract

Holding that the SEC may bring a public enforcement action against a broker who accepted payment for securities that he never delivered

Holding that, "[a]bsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute, these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face"

Holding that in personam criminal forfeiture is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause

Holding that, absent invidious discrimination, government may further its legitimate interests incrementally

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

Noting that for purposes of the innocent owner defense to civil forfeiture, "no person may assert an ownership interest under this subsection in contraband or other property that it is illegal to possess"

Allowing exception to five-year limitations period where Congress has provided otherwise