Lasher v. Securities & Exchange Commission

Second Circuit

Lasher v. Securities & Exchange Commission

343 F.2d 468

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1965

DocketNo. 397, Docket 29338

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 343 F.2d 468 (Lasher v. Securities & Exchange Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lasher v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 343 F.2d 468 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Martin Lasher, seeks to review an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commis[469]*469sion) denying his petition for a rehearing of the Commission’s decision finding him to have wilfully violated certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j(b), 78o(e) (1), and to have been a cause for the revocation of the registration of Armstrong & Co., Inc., as a broker and dealer, on the ground that a witness is now willing to testify that petitioner was an innocent victim of the president of Armstrong & Co., Inc. The Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and it properly concluded that further evidence of the type proffered would serve no purpose.

The order denying the petition for a rehearing is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Martin Lasher, seeks to review an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commis[469]*469sion) denying his petition for a rehearing of the Commission’s decision finding him to have wilfully violated certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j(b), 78o(e) (1), and to have been a cause for the revocation of the registration of Armstrong & Co., Inc., as a broker and dealer, on the ground that a witness is now willing to testify that petitioner was an innocent victim of the president of Armstrong & Co., Inc. The Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and it properly concluded that further evidence of the type proffered would serve no purpose.

The order denying the petition for a rehearing is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 F.2d 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lasher-v-securities-exchange-commission-ca2-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack