holding that the plaintiffs had sufficient proof of reliance when the plaintiffs relied on information that the defendant asked a broker to convey to the plaintiffs
How later courts described this case
- holding that the plaintiffs had sufficient proof of reliance when the plaintiffs relied on information that the defendant asked a broker to convey to the plaintiffs
- "puffing" or "dealers' talk," such as prediction of increased share price, generally not actionable misrepresentation
- holding intentional act of party in providing erroneous address negated good cause for failure to timely answer requests for admission served at wrong address
- when defendant asserts Fifth Amendment, inference that codefendant collaborated with him is just as reasonable as inference that codefendant was unaware of illegal activity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The Court issued its opinion in this appeal on May 17, 2001. On June 1, 2001, appellant, Butch Ballow, filed a timely motion for rehearing. On June 27, 2001, Bal-low and appellees, J.D. Sandefer III and Stephen F. Smith, filed a joint motion to dismiss Ballow’s appeal and to dismiss Bal-low’s motion for rehearing. The Court grants the joint motion to dismiss as follows:
(1) The motion for rehearing of appellant, Butch Ballow, is dismissed.
(2) The appeal of appellant, Butch Bal-low, is dismissed, and the conclusion in this Court’s opinion of May 17, 2001 on pages 2 and 35, affirming the judgment against appellant Butch Ballow, is withdrawn.
(3) Except as set forth above, this Court’s opinion of May 17, 2001 remains unchanged.
(4) The judgment issued on May 17, 2001, is withdrawn and replaced by the corrected judgment attached hereto.
It is so ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.