U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1988

Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided May 13, 1988 · Baldock, Connor, Earl, McKay

846 F.2d 636; 1988 WL 45844 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Parker M. Nielson, Salt Lake City, Utah (Bruce G. Cohne of Cohne, Rappaport & Segal with him on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants., Robert E. Kehoe, Jr., of Wildman, Har-rold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, Ill. (David L. Schiavone, and Keith E. Taylor and Spencer E. Austin of Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief), for defendant-appellee Shatkin Inv. Corp., Wallace T. Boyack, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendant-appellee Brandt and Associates.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Satterfield v. Shatkin Investment Corp. (10th Cir. 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.