Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

R. H. Johnson & Company, a Partnership v. Securities and Exchange Commission

231 F.2d 523

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1956-04-05
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The petitioners, R. H. Johnson & Company, a partnership, R. H.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed R. H. Johnson & Company, a Partnership v. Securities and Exchange Commission. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
5 opinions
R.H. JOHNSON COMPANY v. SEC. EXCH. COM'N,231 F.2d 523(D.C. Cir. 1956)
R.H. JOHNSON COMPANY, a Partnership, et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.
No. 12977.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 9, 1956.
Decided April 5, 1956.
Mr. Milton S. Gould, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for petitioners. Mr. James R. Browning, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for petitioners.

Mr. Arden L. Andresen, Sp. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, with whom Messrs. William H. Timbers, Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Thomas G. Meeker, Associate Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Ellwood L. Englander, Atty., Securities and Exchange Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners, R.H. Johnson Company, a partnership, R.H. Johnson Company, Inc., and Rupert H. Johnson, seek review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, entered November 16, 1955, which revoked the registrations of the partnership and corporation as brokers and dealers, and found Rupert H. Johnson was a cause of the revocation. The petitioners were found to have wilfully violated §§ 10(b) and 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j(b) and 78o(c)(1).

The voluminous record made in an exhaustive hearing amply supports the Commission's order.
Affirmed.Page 524
Page 699