In the case of First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with an issue related to securities fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff, First National Bank of Arizona, accused Cities Service Company (now CITGO) of fraudulent misrepresentation in a bond transaction that resulted in financial loss for the bank. The court had to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff to prove that Cities Service knowingly deceived them about their bonds' value at purchase time. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cities Services Co., stating that while they may have been negligent or careless regarding information provided about their bonds' worth, it did not constitute intentional deception under federal law governing securities transactions - Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 specifically. This ruling set a precedent requiring plaintiffs alleging security fraud must provide clear proof demonstrating defendants acted with intent to deceive or defraud rather than just showing negligence or recklessness on part of defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case due to lack of proof on part of plaintiff, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were indeed genuine issues regarding material facts which should have been presented before a jury. They contended that by dismissing this case without trial, they denied plaintiffs their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases where damages are sought. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation and application of Rule 56(c) - Summary Judgment rule under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - stating it had been used too broadly leading to an unjust dismissal.