U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hickey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 7, 2003 · Graber, Hawkins, Tallman

335 F.3d 834; 2003 WL 21518010 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

David J. Cohen, Cohen & Paik, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellant John A. Hickey., Curtis F. Dowling, Dillingham & Murphy LLP, San Francisco, California, for third-party appellant John Hickey Brokerage Co., Michael A. Conley and Rada Potts, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (9th Cir. 2025)
Tatung Co. v. Shu Tze Hsu (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2016)
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bluepoint Investment Counsel, LLC (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 2025)
Sanders v. Turner (Del. 2024)
Commercial Credit Group Inc. v. AMH Logistics, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. National Express Transit Services Corp. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
Malem Medical, Ltd. v. Theos Medical Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019)
Garcia v. Batcheler (In re Batcheler) (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District Florida 2019)
21st Century Financial Services, LLC v. Manchester Financial Bank (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2017)
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (9th Cir. 2015)
United States v. Gonzales (10th Cir. 2008)
United States v. Hickey (9th Cir. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

The slip opinion filed March 7, 2003, is hereby amended as follows:

At page 3512, line 7, the text “admitted violating securities laws and” shall be deleted. At page 3513, line 24, the word “no” shall be deleted and replaced by “insufficient.” At page 3513, lines 25-27, the following text shall be deleted: “Nonetheless, the district court allowed Hickey’s counsel to designate portions of the deposition of Dorothy Hickey for consideration by the court.”

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The panel has also voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.