Dahl v. Pinter

857 F.2d 262
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 1988
Docket84-1970
StatusPublished

This text of 857 F.2d 262 (Dahl v. Pinter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dahl v. Pinter, 857 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

857 F.2d 262

Maurice DAHL, Gary Clark, W. Grantham, Robert Daniele,
Charles Dahl, Dowayne Bockman, Ray Dilbeck, Richard Koon,
Art Overgarrd, Jack Yeager, Accra Tronics Seals Corp., and
Aaron Heller, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Billy J. "B.J." PINTER, Black Gold Oil Company, Pinter
Energy Company, and Pinter Oil Company,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-1970.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1988.

Braden W. Sparks, Newman, Shook & McManemin, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

John A. Spinuzzi, Denton, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; A. Joe Fish, Judge.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BROWN and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of this court (787 F.2d 985; 794 F.2d 1016) affirming the district court's judgment for plaintiff Dahl has been vacated by the Supreme Court. --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988). The Court called for further findings to meet the standards it established for determining (1) the availability of an in pari delicto defense under Sec. 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, and (2) status as a statutory seller for purposes of imposing liability under Sec. 12(1). The cause is remanded to the district court for further findings consistent with the Supreme Court's holdings and for determination, if appropriate, of contribution to Pinter by Dahl. The district court may, if it chooses, take additional evidence on these issues.

REMANDED.

*

Due to his death on October 19, 1987, Judge Hill did not participate in this decision. This case is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 46(d)

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

Related

Pinter v. Dahl
486 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
857 F.2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dahl-v-pinter-ca5-1988.