This case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission suing Harwyn Industries Corp. and related defendants to enjoin a series of transactions in which Harwyn acquired assets for its subsidiaries, distributed unregistered subsidiary shares to Harwyn shareholders as a "spin-off," and arranged for over-the-counter trading in those shares. The SEC alleged violations of the registration requirement under § 5 of the 1933 Securities Act as well as antifraud provisions under both the 1933 and 1934 Acts. The court denied the Commission's motion for preliminary injunctive relief under § 20(b) of the 1933 Act and § 21(e) of the 1934 Act. It reasoned that the distributions were already completed, there was little likelihood of further violations, and the facts did not warrant injunctive relief, while expressing the view that such spin-offs generally require registration to comply with the securities laws.
The case concerned a 24-year-old Cuban citizen lawfully admitted as a permanent resident who petitioned for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a), requiring proof of good moral character in the preceding five years; the INS opposed on the ground that his admitted homosexual conduct with consenting adults disqualified him. The court granted the petition, holding that the conduct did not bar a finding of good moral character. The core reasoning was that the statutory exclusions in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) do not list private consensual adult homosexuality, the applicable test measures current ethical standards rather than the judge’s personal views or outdated public opinion, and the private nature of the acts distinguished the case from precedents involving public conduct or initial exclusion.
This case involves a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by inmates of the Manhattan House of Detention (the Tombs) challenging post-riot conditions including 24-hour lock-ins, inadequate medical care, meals, exercise, religious services, and library access, as well as mail inspection practices and the lack of posted rules. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, along with plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65. It held that jurisdiction exists over the § 1983 claims and granted the preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part, based on affidavits showing that some conditions had worsened temporarily after disturbances but that defendants were undertaking repairs, population reductions, and service restorations. The core reasoning focused on the temporary nature of many complained-of conditions due to riots and the ongoing efforts to remedy them while recognizing that certain deprivations could support injunctive relief pending final resolution.
The case involved a copyright infringement suit by jewelry manufacturer Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. against retailers Zale Corporation and Lambert Brothers, alleging that the defendants sold jeweled bee and turtle pins that copied the plaintiff's copyrighted designs. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel based on prior successful suits against the pins' manufacturer Honora, or alternatively a preliminary injunction. The court denied summary judgment, holding that Zale was not in privity with Honora for purposes of res judicata or collateral estoppel because the prior litigation did not afford Zale an opportunity to contest the claims. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of valid copyrights, substantial similarity between the designs, and irreparable harm.
This case involved a union suing an employer for alleged breaches of collective bargaining and welfare agreements concerning benefits for employees at closed plants, including claims for a special distribution upon operational discontinuance and continuation of life insurance for retirees. The union sought either arbitration or damages of about $2 million on each of two claims. The court granted summary judgment to the company on the third claim, dismissing it entirely, and on the second claim to the extent it sought arbitration, while denying summary judgment on the damages aspect of the second claim. The core reasoning was that the agreements had terminated, leaving no contractual obligation or arbitrable dispute for post-termination benefits, and that the insurance provisions explicitly limited coverage to the agreement's duration without evidence supporting a contrary interpretation.
This case involves Crane Co.'s attempt to acquire Westinghouse Air Brake Co. through stock purchases and a tender offer, which was opposed by Air Brake's management through a merger agreement with American Standard, Inc. Crane sued Standard and others under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging stock price manipulation and false or misleading proxy statements, and sought only injunctive relief to block the merger and related actions. On remand from the Court of Appeals, the district court addressed motions to define the issues and struck Crane's contemplated claim for money damages from the non-jury equitable proceedings. The court reasoned that the original complaints requested exclusively equitable relief, that damages claims are legal in nature and thus trigger Seventh Amendment jury trial rights upon amendment of the complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the mandate did not require trying damages in the current action.