Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United States v. Robert Chestman
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided October 7, 1991No. 309, Docket 89-1276Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWinter, Circuit Judge
(joined by OAKES, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, KEARSE, and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges), concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the decision to affirm Chest-man’s convictions under Section 14(e) of the *572Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“ ’34 Act”), and under Rule 14e-3. I respectfully dissent, however, from the reversals of his convictions under Section 10(b) and under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1988).
1) INSIDER TRADING
The difficulty this court finds in resolving the issues raised by this appeal stems largely from the history of the development of the law concerning…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Chiarella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Dirks v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Danny O. Cherif, and Khaled Sanchou, NominalCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Gratz v. ClaughtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.