Case Name: ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Sidney SUGARMAN, United States District Judge, Respondent; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-10-02
Citations: 259 F.2d 428
Docket Number: Nos. 25345-25347
Parties: ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Sidney SUGARMAN, United States District Judge, Respondent. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 259
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Sidney SUGARMAN, United States District Judge, Respondent. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
Nos. 25345-25347.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 29, 1958.
Decided Oct. 2, 1958.
John T. Cahill, of Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, for petitioners and defendants, Arvida Corp. et al.
Paul Windels, Jr., Regional Administrator, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York City (William D. Moran, Asst. Regional Administrator, and John J. Devaney, Jr., Chief, Branch of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, New York City, and Thomas G. Meeker, Gen. Counsel, and Irving M. Pollack, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent and plaintiff, Judge Sugarman and Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and. MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petition for mandamus is denied as moot. The merits relating to the application for a preliminary injunction are now being heard before the district court. For this reason there is no need of appellate decision as to the temporary restraining order or the order which vacated it.