Stephens & Co. Duffield v. Robertson
Significance, Legislative History, Through The Looking Glass, The Controversy Continues, Further Readings
Robertson Stephens & Co.
That Form U-4 is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be enforced.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Daniel F. Bookin
William C. Canby, Jr., Stephen Reinhardt (writing for the court), Jane A. Restani (Court of International Trade Judge)
San Francisco, California
Date of Decision
8 May 1998
Form U-4 is unenforceable.
- 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).
- 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