Affiliations

• Greenspun v. McCarran

  Cites United States v. Patten — 187 Fed. Rep. 664, reversed.

• Securities & Exchange Commission v. Searchlight Consol. Mining & Milling Co.

  District Court, D. Nevada · 1953-03-17 · cited 2×

  The case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that Searchlight Consolidated Mining & Milling Company and related defendants sold shares of stock using interstate commerce and the mails without an effective registration statement, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The defendants claimed exemption under Section 3(b) via a filed letter of notification under Regulation A, but the court found they failed to file required circular letters with the Commission as mandated by the rules. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment based on undisputed facts from pleadings and affidavits, and issued a permanent injunction preventing further sales without registration, unless an exemption applies. The reasoning centered on the defendants' burden to prove exemption and their non-compliance with filing requirements, which frustrated the Act's purpose of full disclosure.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,791 words)

• Greenspun v. McCarran

  District Court, D. Nevada · 1952-06-06 · cited 9×

  The case involved the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper suing various Las Vegas gambling and hotel businesses, alleging they conspired to withdraw their advertising from the Sun in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act to eliminate competition with the local rival newspaper. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the defendants to resume placing advertising in the Sun at previous levels. The reasoning was that the evidence showed a concerted action intended to harm the Sun's interstate commerce by cutting off its advertising revenue, which could lead to its demise and create a monopoly, as supported by precedent in Lorain Journal v. United States.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,571 words)

• Bandy v. United States

  District Court, D. Nevada · 1950-08-22 · cited 6×

  The case involves a veteran suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from negligent medical treatment at a Veterans' Hospital for a service-connected condition. The government argued that the plaintiff had elected remedies by accepting veterans' compensation and that service-connected disabilities were excluded from FTCA recovery. The court rejected both defenses, holding that prior Supreme Court precedent in Brooks v. United States established no election of remedies or exclusivity of veterans' benefits, and that the FTCA's enumerated exceptions do not bar such claims since Congress did not expressly exclude servicemen. The court awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in damages, to be offset by veterans' compensation already received or to be paid, plus costs and attorney's fees.

  torts & liabilityfederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,408 words)

• Clark County, Nevada v. City of Los Angeles, California

  District Court, D. Nevada · 1950-08-04 · cited 6×

  Clark County, Nevada sued the City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power in federal court to collect over $225,000 in license fees and penalties under a county ordinance that required permits and fees for generating electric power within the county from May to December 1948. The defendants, California municipal entities, raised defenses asserting that service of process was invalid. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because service was attempted under Nevada state statutes by delivery to the Nevada Secretary of State and other means, which did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion reasoned that Congress has authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe exclusive rules of practice and procedure for federal district courts, preempting state laws on service, and that the Federal Rules contain no provision authorizing service on out-of-state municipal corporations in the manner used here.

  procedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,362 words)