Huntington v. Attrill

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Double Enforcers, Double Penalties, Double Jeopardy, and Double Talk

    Arnall Golden Gregory LLPAdriaen Morse Jr.July 28, 2020

    [1] United States v. Bank, No. 19-4356 (4th Cir. Jul. 14, 2020) (italics added).[2]Id. at 17, n.7.[3] Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1639 (2017).[4] U.S. Const., amend. V (“No person shall be . . . subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .”).[5] Kokesh, 137 S.Ct. at 1642 (quoting Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 667 (1892)).[6] Id. at (quoting Attrill, 146 U.S. at 667).

  2. The Supreme Court Reins in the SEC Further on Its Time to Pursue Enforcement Remedies

    Baker & Hostetler LLPMarc D. PowersJune 13, 2017

    [2] Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442, 454 (2013). [3] See Marc D. Powers and Elizabeth M. Schutte, Restrictions on Remedies and Continued Viability of Tolling Theory in Five Year Old SEC Enforcement Actions Post-Gabelli, WOLTERS KLUWER, Sept. 15, 2016, https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Litigation/2016/Articles/09-08-2016-Powers-Schutte-Wolters-Kluwer.pdf. [4] 28 U.S.C. § 2462. [5] SEC v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1363 (11th Cir. 2016) [6] Kokesh, slip op. at 1. [7] Id. at 5-6 (quoting Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 667 (1892)). [8] Id. at 6 (quoting Huntington, 146 U.S. at 668).

  3. The High Court Rejects SEC Efforts to Avoid Limitation Period Again

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPJune 9, 2017

    The limitation in Section 2462 applied “if SEC disgorgement qualifies as either a fine, penalty, or forfeiture.” Citing Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 667 (1892), the Court defined “penalty” as a “punishment," whether corporal or pecuniary, imposed and enforced by the State, for a crime or offen[s]e against its laws.” (alteration in original).