Bernard v. Wassel and Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, and Central Trust Company

Fourth Circuit

Bernard v. Wassel and Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, and Central Trust Company

542 F.2d 1235, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1976

Docket75-2123

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 542 F.2d 1235 (Bernard v. Wassel and Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, and Central Trust Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernard v. Wassel and Sevy Wassel, His Wife v. Edward M. Eglowsky, Stephen H. Stillerman v. Arnold Goldman, and Central Trust Company, 542 F.2d 1235, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6612 (4th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In an exhaustive opinion, the district judge granted judgment to plaintiffs Bernard V. Wassel and Sevy Wassel against defendants Edward M. Eglowsky and Stephen H. Stillerman, and he gave Eglowsky and Stillerman judgment for contribution against Arnold Goldman, a third-party defendant, exonerating Central Trust Company, another third-party defendant. Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 (D.Md.1975). Plaintiffs’ recovery was grounded upon defendants’ violation of § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 777(1) (selling unregistered securities).

Defendants Eglowsky and Stiller-man appeal, assigning numerous grounds for reversal. We find none of them meritorious, and we affirm on the opinion of the district court, adopting it as our own with regard to the violation of § 12(1) of the Act and defendants’ right to contribution from Goldman.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In an exhaustive opinion, the district judge granted judgment to plaintiffs Bernard V. Wassel and Sevy Wassel against defendants Edward M. Eglowsky and Stephen H. Stillerman, and he gave Eglowsky and Stillerman judgment for contribution against Arnold Goldman, a third-party defendant, exonerating Central Trust Company, another third-party defendant. Wassel v. Eglowsky, 399 F.Supp. 1330 (D.Md.1975). Plaintiffs’ recovery was grounded upon defendants’ violation of § 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 777(1) (selling unregistered securities).

Defendants Eglowsky and Stiller-man appeal, assigning numerous grounds for reversal. We find none of them meritorious, and we affirm on the opinion of the district court, adopting it as our own with regard to the violation of § 12(1) of the Act and defendants’ right to contribution from Goldman.

AFFIRMED.

Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,731, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,628, 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 252 Dr. Roger E. Austin, Dr. Thomas W. Anderson, Dr. Myrel A. Neumann and Dr. William C. Randall, and Cross v. B. J. Loftsgaarden Alotel Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation M. S. Noah Lyman H. Coult Property Development & Research Company, a Minnesota Corporation and 2361 Building Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, and Cross

675 F.2d 168 (Eighth Circuit, 1982)

Austin v. Loftsgaarden

675 F.2d 168 (Eighth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 F.2d 1235, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-v-wassel-and-sevy-wassel-his-wife-v-edward-m-eglowsky-stephen-ca4-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack