30 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,698 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain
503 U.S. 249 (1992) Cited 2,709 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)
Cannon v. University of Chicago
441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cited 2,359 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination
Touche Ross Co. v. Redington
442 U.S. 560 (1979) Cited 1,721 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, whether expressly or by implication, a private cause of action."
Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
444 U.S. 11 (1979) Cited 1,334 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Congress did not provide a private right of action for § 80b-6 because the statute expressly provided other means of enforcing compliance with its terms
Bedroc Ltd. v. United States
541 U.S. 176 (2004) Cited 511 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means
Morissette v. United States
342 U.S. 246 (1952) Cited 2,279 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is a defense to a charge of "knowingly converting" federal property that one did not know that what one was doing was a conversion
S.E.C. v. Lawbaugh
359 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Md. 2005) Cited 661 times
Finding default judgment appropriate "when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party"
United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc.
758 F.2d 741 (1st Cir. 1985) Cited 168 times
Holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply fully against the government because the possibility of harm to a private party is often, if not always, grossly outweighed by the public interest in enforcement of congressionally mandated public policy
United States v. Brashier
548 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1976) Cited 143 times
Nos. 75-3375, 75-3453. December 29, 1976. S. Thomas Pollack (argued), of Irell Manella, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant in 75-3375. Joseph A. Ball (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant in 75-3453. Joel Levine, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Andrew D. T. Pfeffer, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI, Senior District Judge
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 39,098 times 320 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity
Section 78u-4 - Private securities litigation
15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 Cited 7,498 times 49 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party
Section 641 - Public money, property or records
18 U.S.C. § 641 Cited 2,943 times 22 Legal Analyses
Requiring knowledge
Section 666 - Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds
18 U.S.C. § 666 Cited 1,588 times 51 Legal Analyses
Making it a crime to "obtain by fraud ... property"
Section 656 - Theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee
18 U.S.C. § 656 Cited 868 times 2 Legal Analyses
Criminalizing certain conduct by an individual who is “an officer, director, agent or employee of, or connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank”
Section 501 - Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations
29 U.S.C. § 501 Cited 811 times 1 Legal Analyses
Declaring duties of union officials and agents to “hold [the union's] money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members”
Section 664 - Theft or embezzlement from employee benefit plan
18 U.S.C. § 664 Cited 329 times 8 Legal Analyses
Relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds
Section 80a-33 - Destruction and falsification of reports and records
15 U.S.C. § 80a-33 Cited 47 times
(a) Willful destruction It shall be unlawful for any person, except as permitted by rule, regulation, or order of the Commission, willfully to destroy, mutilate, or alter any account, book, or other document the preservation of which has been required pursuant to section 80a-30(a) or 80a-31(c) of this title. (b) Untrue statements or omissions It shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact in any registration statement, application, report, account, record, or
Section 80a-36 - Larceny and embezzlement
15 U.S.C. § 80a-36 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
Whoever steals, unlawfully abstracts, unlawfully and willfully converts to his own use or to the use of another, or embezzles any of the moneys, funds, securities, credits, property, or assets of any registered investment company shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 80a-48 of this title. A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution under this section
Section 80a-48 - Penalties
15 U.S.C. § 80a-48 Cited 6 times 1 Legal Analyses
Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subchapter or of any rule, regulation, or order hereunder, or any person who willfully in any registration statement, application, report, account, record, or other document filed or transmitted pursuant to this subchapter or the keeping of which is required pursuant to section 80a-30(a) of this title makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to prevent the statements made therein from

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Durgarian et al

30 Cited authorities

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

Holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 created a private right of action for victims of education discrimination

Holding that the "central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, whether expressly or by implication, a private cause of action."

Holding that Congress did not provide a private right of action for § 80b-6 because the statute expressly provided other means of enforcing compliance with its terms

Holding a court presumes that Congress says in the statute what it means

Holding that it is a defense to a charge of "knowingly converting" federal property that one did not know that what one was doing was a conversion

Finding default judgment appropriate "when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party"

Holding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply fully against the government because the possibility of harm to a private party is often, if not always, grossly outweighed by the public interest in enforcement of congressionally mandated public policy

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Granting courts authority to permit discovery if necessary "to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to" a party

Requiring knowledge

Making it a crime to "obtain by fraud ... property"

Criminalizing certain conduct by an individual who is “an officer, director, agent or employee of, or connected in any capacity with any Federal Reserve bank”

Declaring duties of union officials and agents to “hold [the union's] money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members”

Relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds