Vanessa Simmonds alleged in 54 separate complaints that several investment banks shared in the profits of customers who received IPO. Case opinion for US Supreme Court CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC ET AL. v. SIMMONDS. Read the Court’s full decision on. Vanessa Simmonds brought suit under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of in order to recoup profits realized by Credit Suisse and other.
|Published (Last):||25 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||20.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.42 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Vacated and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 26, The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Certiorari-stage documents Opinion below 9th Cir. Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioners’ reply. Recent Decisions United States sim,onds. Stitt The term “burglary” in skisse Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation. Department of the Interior not to exclude an area from critical habitat under 16 U.
Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of regardless of the number of employees they have. Emmons 1 Whether the U. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; 2 whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on crdeit single decision, published after the event in question, to support its conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and 3 whether the sulsse court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was without probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.
United States Whether the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey—which held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted simmonfs a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt—should apply to the imposition of criminal restitution.
Full Calendar Submit Sikmonds. Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Simmondss About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system. Search Blog or Docket.
Credit Suisse Securities v. Featured Posts Argument preview: Is foreclosure debt collection? December — Victoria Kwan. Noted political scientist and Supreme Court scholar — Ronald Collins. Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email. Allina Health Services Biestek v.
Murphy Cochise Consultancy Inc. United States, ex rel. Steager Department of Commerce v.
United States Garza v. United States Helsinn Healthcare S. Archer and White Sales Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds (10-1261)
Wyoming Home Depot U. Securities and Exchange Commission Madison v. Alabama Manhattan Community Access Corp.
Albrecht Mission Product Holdings Inc. Tempnology, LLC Mont v. Guido New Prime Inc. Republic of Sudan v. Harrison Return Mail Inc. United States Sturgeon v. Indiana United States v. Haymond United States v. Sims United States v. Stitt Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill Virginia Uranium, Inc.
Warren Washington State Department of Licensing v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Conference of December 7, City of Escondido, California v. Wilkie Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v.
Robbins and Bowles v. Department of Commerce v.
Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds | U.S. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association 1 Whether simmonds year-old memorial to the fallen simmohds World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; 2 whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v.
KurtzmanVan Orden v. PerryTown of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and 3 whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Pepper Whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
We’ll assume you’re ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Nov 29, Tr.