U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

R. H. Johnson & Company, a Partnership v. Securities and Exchange Commission

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 5, 1956 · Miller, Bazelon, Bastian

231 F.2d 523; 97 U.S. App. D.C. 364; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 5283 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Milton S. Gould, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for petitioners. Mr. James R. Browning, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners., Mr. Arden L. Andresen, Sp. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, with whom Messrs. William II. Timbers, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Thomas G. Meeker, Associate Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Ellwood L. Englander, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,437 Hetty Fey v. Walston & Co., Inc., and Robert A. Spira (7th Cir. 1974)
Bertha Hecht, and v. Harris, Upham & Co., a Partnership, Harris, Upham & Co., Inc., a Corporation, And (9th Cir. 1970)
Moscarelli v. Stamm (District Court, E.D. New York 1968)
Lorenz v. Watson (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1966)

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners, R. H. Johnson & Company, a partnership, R. H. Johnson & Company, Inc., and Rupert H. Johnson, seek review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, entered November 16, 1955, which revoked the registrations of the partnership and corporation as brokers and dealers, and found Rupert H. Johnson was a cause of the revocation. The petitioners were found to have wilfully violated §§ 10(b) and 15(e) (1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j (b) and 78o(c) (1).

The voluminous record made in an exhaustive hearing amply supports the Commission's order.

Affirmed.

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