Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp.

Tenth Circuit

Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp.

846 F.2d 636, 1988 WL 45844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1988

DocketNo. 86-1374

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 846 F.2d 636 (Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp., 846 F.2d 636, 1988 WL 45844 (10th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

EARL E. O’CONNOR, District Judge.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs against several defendants arising from various transfers of securities owned by the plaintiffs. The district court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants-appellees Shatkin Investment Corp. and Brandt and Associates. Satter-field, v. Haymond, et al. (D.Utah 1985) [available on WESTLAW, 1985 WL 17576]. The lower court entered a separate judgment for these defendants pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs appealed.

Having examined the arguments presented on appeal by the plaintiffs, we find nothing that would warrant our disturbing the district court’s decision. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the court’s exhaustive and scholarly opinion.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EARL E. O’CONNOR, District Judge.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs against several defendants arising from various transfers of securities owned by the plaintiffs. The district court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants-appellees Shatkin Investment Corp. and Brandt and Associates. Satter-field, v. Haymond, et al. (D.Utah 1985) [available on WESTLAW, 1985 WL 17576]. The lower court entered a separate judgment for these defendants pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs appealed.

Having examined the arguments presented on appeal by the plaintiffs, we find nothing that would warrant our disturbing the district court’s decision. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the court’s exhaustive and scholarly opinion.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 F.2d 636, 1988 WL 45844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satterfield-v-shatkin-investment-corp-ca10-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack