You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Case for Briefing Dewsnup v. Timm 116 L.Ed. 2d 903, 112 S. Ct. 773 (1992)
Pages 2 (502 words)
Plaintiff-respondents during 1979 through 1981 purchased units in seven Connecticut limited partnerships formed for the purpose of purchasing and leasing computer hardware and software. The purchase is coupled with expectation of realizing federal income tax benefits…
In 1986 and 1987, plaintiff-respondents filed complaints in the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging that they were induced to invest in the partnerships by misrepresentations in offering memoranda prepared by petitioner and others in violations of inter alia, 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and further assert that they become aware of the alleged misrepresentations only in 1985.
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that the complaints were not timely filed, ruling that the claims were governed by Oregon's 2-year limitations period for fraud claims, the most analogous forum-state statute; that plaintiff-respondents had been on notice of the possibility of fraud as early as 1982; and that there were no grounds sufficient to toll the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals also selected Oregon's limitations period, but reversed, finding that there were unresolved factual is- sues as to when plaintiff-respondents should have discovered the alleged fraud.
No. The judgment is reversed. The court through Justice Blackmun held that litigation pursuant to 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such violation, as provided in the 1934 Act and the Securities Act of 1933.
It is the usual rule that when Congress has failed to pro- vide a statute of limitations for a ...
Not exactly what you need?