Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
He said, [1] It is true that if he had not supposed he would have a charge he would not have taken the debentures; but if he also relied on the misstatement in the prospectus, his loss nonetheless resulted from that misstatement. It is not necessary to show that the misstatement was the sole cause of his acting as he did.
Case history; Prior: Franks v. State, 373 A.2d 578 (Del. 1977): Subsequent: Franks v. State, 398 A.2d 783 (Del. 1979): Holding; Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, [1] with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. [2]
Blackmun reviewed the standards of materiality, including the holding in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., that "an omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote." [4] This standard was then expressly adopted for § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), is a Fourth Amendment case. [1] Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas [2] and Spinelli v. United States, [3] thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.