Word: suits
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...original SEC suit, filed in the spring of 1965, charged that 14 men had used advance knowledge of a copper ore strike in Timmons, Ont, to buy stock in Texas Gulf Sulphur. Lamont was initially said to be the only man not to have profited personally from the information; the original suit merely said that he had passed the information on to a friend, who had made large purchases for several banking clients. The suit was later amended, however, to charge that Lamont had bought securities for himself...
Lamont was a director of Texas Gulf Sulphur, and all the other defendants were either directors, officers, or employers of the company. The thirteenth man, Thomas P. O'Nell, the company's former accountant, did not file an answer to the suit and was not mentioned in Judge Bonsal's decision...
...years later a five-to-four majority upheld the conviction of Lloyd Barenblatt, former instructor at Vasser who refused on first amendment grounds to answer questions about alleged Communist affiliations. Aside from the technical point which the Court had cited in the Watkins case, Barenblatt's suit was fundamentally the same. Thus Congress was reassured that the Watkins decision represented no broad judicial opinion on HUAC proceedings, and a confrontation between the two branches was avoided...
...last week Federal Judge Howard Corcoran broke form and ordered HUAC to post-pone an investigation into the left fringe of the anti-war movement until a special three-judge court could hear a new ACLU suit against the committee. In the twenty-four hour period before the three-judge panel vacated Corcoran's order, Congressional reaction and in particular HUAC's decision to go ahead with hearings anyway demonstrated that a Court decision declaring HUAC's unconstitutionality would not be taken sitting down. It also seemed evident that many anti-HUAC Congressmen, assuming they exist, would give higher priority...
...ACLU suit, however, is based on a Supreme Court decision of April, 1965, (Dombrowski, vs. Pfister) in which the Court ruled that Louisiana anti-subversive laws had a "chilling effect" on free speech; thus the two who brought the suit were not even required to undergo prosecution because, the majority opinion asserted, trying them would infringe on their first amendment rights -- regardless of the verdict...