Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,771 Walter F. Hurst v. Dare to Be Great, Inc., a Corporation, Walter F. Hurst v. Dare to Be Great, Inc., a Corporation
Opinion
Opinion
Duniway, J.
In this case, plaintiff Hurst bought from Dare To Be Great, Inc. (Dare) its Adventure IV, which is described in our opinion in SEC v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc., 9 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 476 , filed today. Disillusioned with what he got, Hurst sued for the return of his money under the diversity jurisdiction. The trial judge held that Adventure IV is an investment contract within the meaning of Oregon Revised Statutes, eh. 59, and gave judgment for Hurst. Both parties appeal.
1. The appeal of Dare.
The trial judge held that purchasers of Adventure IV were contributing sufficiently to the product development and promotion of Dare to bring the case within the ambit of State ex rel. Healy v. Consumer Business System, Inc., Or.App., 1971, 482 P.2d 549 , which adopted for Oregon the risk capital test of Silver Hills Country Club v. Sobieski, 1961, 55 Cal.2d 811 , 13 Cal.Rptr. 186 , 361 P.2d 906 . He so held notwithstanding the fact that Dare had a “product” in being when it began soliciting business in Oregon.
In diversity cases, where state law controls, we will not overrule the district court’s interpretation of state law unless it is clearly wrong, particularly if the…