Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,595 Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams, Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams

Fifth Circuit

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,595 Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams, Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams

617 F.2d 1207, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17077

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 1980

Docket79-1459, 79-1580

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 617 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,595 Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams, Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams) 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

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,595 Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams, Okc Corporation v. Harold M. Williams, 617 F.2d 1207, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17077 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

OKC states that this court ignored its argument that, without regard to the manner in which the SEC secured possession of the report prepared by a law firm at the request of the corporate board, and for reasons based on constitutional and common law grounds, any use by the SEC of the report was impermissible because it was privileged. The district court mentioned this argument in its order of November 22, 1978, but this order was interlocutory in nature, and this appeal was not taken from it. All this court has before it is an appeal from a partial summary judgment that was narrowly restricted by the district court. This court has carefully confined itself to ruling on the matters presented in the appeal that arise from the partial summary judgment and has avoided ruling on issues not before us.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16) the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

OKC states that this court ignored its argument that, without regard to the manner in which the SEC secured possession of the report prepared by a law firm at the request of the corporate board, and for reasons based on constitutional and common law grounds, any use by the SEC of the report was impermissible because it was privileged. The district court mentioned this argument in its order of November 22, 1978, but this order was interlocutory in nature, and this appeal was not taken from it. All this court has before it is an appeal from a partial summary judgment that was narrowly restricted by the district court. This court has carefully confined itself to ruling on the matters presented in the appeal that arise from the partial summary judgment and has avoided ruling on issues not before us.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16) the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 F.2d 1207, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fed-sec-l-rep-p-97595-okc-corporation-v-harold-m-williams-okc-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack