Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder
- Decided
- May 19, 1976
- Docket
- 74-1042
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,533 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mogler
What later courts said
- concluding that “manipulative,” “device,” and “contrivance” in § 10(b) “connot[e] intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive or defraud investors” — Securities & Exchange Commission v. Adler (1998)
- holding that scienter, “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud” is an essential element of a § 10b/Rule 1b-5 claim — D.E. & J Ltd. Partnership v. Conaway (2003)
- ruling that the scope of Rule 10b-5 cannot exceed the power granted to the S.E.C. by Congress in section 10(b) — Cohen v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. (1989)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether an action for civil damages may lie under § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. [*188] § 78j (b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR § 240.1Ob-5 (1975), in the absence of an allegation of intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud on the part of the defendant.
I
Statutes cited
- 15 U.S.C. § 78q
- 15 U.S.C. § 77a
- 15 U.S.C. § 77h
- 15 U.S.C. § 78i
- 15 U.S.C. § 78j
- 15 U.S.C. § 77k
- 15 U.S.C. § 78r
- 15 U.S.C. § 77m
- 15 U.S.C. § 77o
- 15 U.S.C. § 78p
And 3 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.