Home/Supreme Court/Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lipton

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lipton

469 U.S. 1132, 83 L. Ed. 2d 807, 105 S. Ct. 814, 53 U.S.L.W. 3484, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 480
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 7, 1985
DocketNo. 84-646; No. 84-651
StatusPublished
Cited by45 cases

This text of 469 U.S. 1132 (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lipton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Lipton, 469 U.S. 1132, 83 L. Ed. 2d 807, 105 S. Ct. 814, 53 U.S.L.W. 3484, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 480 (1985).

Opinion

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Brennan would grant certiorari. Reported below: 734 F. 2d 740.

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

Related

In Re Enron Corp. Securities
529 F. Supp. 2d 644 (S.D. Texas, 2006)
In Re Cascade International Securities Litigation
840 F. Supp. 1558 (S.D. Florida, 1993)
Edgington v. R.G. Dickinson & Co.
139 F.R.D. 183 (D. Kansas, 1991)
South Carolina National Bank v. Stone
139 F.R.D. 325 (D. South Carolina, 1991)
In re Amerifirst Securities Litigation
139 F.R.D. 423 (S.D. Florida, 1991)
In Re Sahlen & Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation
773 F. Supp. 342 (S.D. Florida, 1991)
Kreuzfeld A.G. v. Carnehammar
138 F.R.D. 594 (S.D. Florida, 1991)
Bank v. Pitt
928 F.2d 1108 (Eleventh Circuit, 1991)
Adrian Freeman v. Laventhol & Horwath
915 F.2d 193 (Sixth Circuit, 1990)
Leonard v. Stuart-James Co., Inc.
742 F. Supp. 653 (N.D. Georgia, 1990)
In Re Laser Arms Corp. Securities Litigation
794 F. Supp. 475 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Dingler v. T.J. Raney & Sons, Inc.
708 F. Supp. 1044 (W.D. Arkansas, 1989)
Landry v. Price Waterhouse Chartered Accountants
123 F.R.D. 474 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Shores v. Sklar
844 F.2d 1485 (First Circuit, 1988)
Shores v. Sklar
844 F.2d 1485 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,737 Christ Rousseff, Kenneth Barneby, Vinita Robinson, William R. Jacobson, Charles Helton v. E.F. Hutton Company, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Anadarko Land & Exploration Co., Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Christ Rousseff, Kenneth Barneby v. E.F. Hutton Company, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Andarko Land & Exploration Co., Inc., a Foreign Corporation
843 F.2d 1326 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Rousseff v. E.F. Hutton Co.
843 F.2d 1326 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Ernest Ross, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Bank South, N.A., Alston & Bird, George Miller, Individually and as a Representative of a Class of Bondholders Described in the Complaint v. Arthur M. Rice, Jr., William v. Weldon, Ernest Ross, Individually and as Representative of a Bondholder Class v. Bank South, N.A., George Miller, Individually, and as a Representative of a Class of Bondholders Described in the Complaint v. Arthur M. Rice, Jr.
837 F.2d 980 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Ross v. Bank South, N.A.
837 F.2d 980 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Anderson v. Bank of South, N.A.
118 F.R.D. 136 (M.D. Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
469 U.S. 1132, 83 L. Ed. 2d 807, 105 S. Ct. 814, 53 U.S.L.W. 3484, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peat-marwick-mitchell-co-v-lipton-scotus-1985.