HOME Popular Books Popular Audioooks Popular Textbooks Popular Freebooks More Genres

Book

Audiobook

Genres

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Yingling

By Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Release : 2000-09-11

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 00a0311p.06 Submitted: June 13, 2000 OPINION Prudential Securities, Inc. (""Prudential"") and Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (""Dean Witter"") (collectively referred to as ""plaintiffs"") initiated this action seeking to enjoin Catherine M. Yingling (""Yingling"" or ""defendant"") from pursuing claims against them in a National Association of Security Dealers (""NASD"") arbitration proceeding. The district court permanently enjoined Yingling from pursuing arbitration claims which accrued prior to September 2, 1991, concluding that pursuant to § 10304 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, such claims were time barred. Plaintiffs then moved for the dismissal of defendant's counter claims and the district court granted the motion. Defendant brought this pro se appeal.

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Yingling

By Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Release : 2000-09-11

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 00a0311p.06 Submitted: June 13, 2000 OPINION Prudential Securities, Inc. (""Prudential"") and Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (""Dean Witter"") (collectively referred to as ""plaintiffs"") initiated this action seeking to enjoin Catherine M. Yingling (""Yingling"" or ""defendant"") from pursuing claims against them in a National Association of Security Dealers (""NASD"") arbitration proceeding. The district court permanently enjoined Yingling from pursuing arbitration claims which accrued prior to September 2, 1991, concluding that pursuant to § 10304 of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, such claims were time barred. Plaintiffs then moved for the dismissal of defendant's counter claims and the district court granted the motion. Defendant brought this pro se appeal.

advertisement

Access e-books

More By Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Associated General Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik

Foundation For Interior Design Education Research V. Savannah College Of Art & Design

Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Management Sciences

Dobbs-Weinstein V. Vanderbilt University

United States V. Boucha

Gulertekin V. Tinnelman-Cooper

In Re G.A.D.

Hansmann V. Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company

Amadou V. Immigration And Naturalization Service

Craigmiles v. Giles

Chao V.Hospital Staffing Services

Centerior Service Co. V. Acme Scrap Iron & Metal Corp.

Conwood Company

Herman Miller

Jalapeno Property Management

Bonnell V. Lorenzo

Robert Dennis Mcclung v. Marion County

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Yingling

[U] United States v. Preston

United States v. Cerna

United Parcel Service v. National Labor Relations Board

Kenneth L. Roberts v. Stevens Clinic

Lacy Smith v. Board Education County Logan

State West Virginia v. Glen Dale Woodall

State West Virginia v. Timothy Mcwilliams

Corzin V. Fordu

Itt Automotive V. National Labor Relations Board

United States V. M/G Transport Services Inc.

Kalamazoo River Study Group V. Rockwell International Corp.

Delisle V. Rivers

Barnett V. Department Of Veterans Affairs

Duncan V. Handmaker

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Of Chippewa Indians V. Engler

Ferro Corp. V. Garrison Industries Inc.

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

United States V. Strayhorn

Jahn V. Equine Services

Weberg V. Franks

United States V. Corrado

United States V. Corrado

Mclean V. 988011 Ontario

United States V. Bahhur

Texler V. County Of Summit Board Of Mental Retardation And Developmental Disabilities

State West Virginia v. Virgil Glover

Cassidy v. Akzo Nobel Salt

Kincade v. Sparkman

Hardaway v. Withrow

United States V. Haynes

Grand Rapids Plastics Inc. v. Lakian

Rybarczyk V. Trw