Stephens & Co. Duffield v. Robertson
Significance, Legislative History, Through The Looking Glass, The Controversy Continues, Further Readings
Appellant
Tonyja Duffield
Appellee
Robertson Stephens & Co.
Appellant's Claim
That Form U-4 is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be enforced.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Michael Rubin
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Daniel F. Bookin
Judges
William C. Canby, Jr., Stephen Reinhardt (writing for the court), Jane A. Restani (Court of International Trade Judge)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
San Francisco, California
Date of Decision
8 May 1998
Decision
Form U-4 is unenforceable.
Related Cases
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974).
- Swenson v. Management Recruiters Int'l, Inc., 858 F.2d 1304 (1988).
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991).
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 121 F.3d 702 (1997).
- Seus v. John Nuveen & Co., No. 97-1498 (1998).
Additional topics
- Edmund Ko Trial: 2000 - Jealous Rival, Ominous Silence
- Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium - Decision, Significance, Justice Breyer's Contextual Balancing Approach, Justice Kennedy's Categorical Approach
- Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Further Readings
- Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Significance
- Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Legislative History
- Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - Through The Looking Glass
- Stephens Co. Duffield v. Robertson - The Controversy Continues
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present