Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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 H. 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.
Judges
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Walter Maximillian Bastian
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • 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 H. 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.
Judges
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Walter Maximillian Bastian
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

R.H. JOHNSON COMPANY, a Partnership, et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

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(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j (b) and 78 o(c)(1).

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

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

R.H. JOHNSON COMPANY v. SEC. EXCH. COM'N
(Apr 5, 1956)