Legal Opinion · Dissent
Charles Fisher v. First Stamford Bank and Trust Company
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided December 20, 1984No. 59, Docket 84-7258Published
1DissentVan Graafeiland, Circuit Judge
Every litigant, even a bank, is entitled to have its legal disputes tried and determined in accordance with correct legal procedures and established rules of law. Because that is not what is happening in the instant case, I dissent.
This case involves employee stock options, a device used to attract and retain capable personnel. When First Stamford Bank and Trust Company (“First Stamford”) was organized in 1971, “Qualified Stock Options” were given to a number of its employees including appellee Fisher. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a “Qualified Stock Option” must provide that it is not…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Mozell Grey v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Botticello v. StefanoviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- In re the Estate of CallahanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1931
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.