Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arthur W. Bowley v. Stotler & Co. And John Mulach C/o Stotler & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided January 8, 1985No. 84-1104Published

1DissentGarth, Circuit Judge

The issue on which I part company with the majority involves the “control” issue of Bowley’s appeal. Bowley contends that Mulach, the account executive, had de facto control of his trading account and that Mulach, utilizing that control, churned Bowley’s security account to Bowley’s detriment. Mulach, on the other hand, was consistent in asserting that Bowley had the right to control the account by refusing recommendations made by Mulach to either buy or sell, and that indeed, by the time of the alleged churning activity, it was Bow-ley himself who was initiating the trading activity. Hence…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Namet v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. Gibbs, Stephen A/K/A "Jake,"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
  3. R. H. Fulton v. Chicago, Rock Island And Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1973
  4. United States v. Patrick J. Logan, Michael Graner. Appeal of Michael GranerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  5. Trent v. Atlantic City Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API