Goldfine v. Securities & Exchange Commission

First Circuit

Goldfine v. Securities & Exchange Commission

157 F.2d 900, 5 SEC Jud. Dec. 19, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3789, 1946 WL 62877

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1946

DocketNo. 4175

StatusPublished

This text of 157 F.2d 900 (Goldfine v. Securities & Exchange Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldfine v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 157 F.2d 900, 5 SEC Jud. Dec. 19, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3789, 1946 WL 62877 (1st Cir. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is here taken from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, entered October 25, 1945, enforcing a certain plan of reorganization theretofore submitted by New England Public Service Company to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 11 (e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 803, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79k (e), and by the Commission duly approved. For the background of the case, see our opinion in Harry C. Blatchley, Petitioner, 157 F.2d 894. Appellee New England Public Service Company has filed a motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, which motion is supported by a memorandum filed by the Commission. We think that the motion must be granted for the reason that appellant Goldfine, in the circumstances disclosed, has no standing to appeal from the order enforcing the plan.

The appeal is dismissed,

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

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is here taken from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, entered October 25, 1945, enforcing a certain plan of reorganization theretofore submitted by New England Public Service Company to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 11 (e) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 803, 15 U.S.C.A. § 79k (e), and by the Commission duly approved. For the background of the case, see our opinion in Harry C. Blatchley, Petitioner, 157 F.2d 894. Appellee New England Public Service Company has filed a motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, which motion is supported by a memorandum filed by the Commission. We think that the motion must be granted for the reason that appellant Goldfine, in the circumstances disclosed, has no standing to appeal from the order enforcing the plan.

The appeal is dismissed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F.2d 900, 5 SEC Jud. Dec. 19, 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 3789, 1946 WL 62877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfine-v-securities-exchange-commission-ca1-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack