Richard Rutherford v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Good Law
842 F.2d 214·1988 WL 21303·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3299
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 198887-7114California1,079 words

Opinion

Opinion

Norris, J.

ORDER

The Memorandum disposition filed December 22, 1987, is redesignated as an authored Opinion by Judge Norris.

OPINION

Appellant Rutherford seeks review of an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) that bars Rutherford from membership or affiliation with the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) for two months. The Commission adopted the findings of a three-member panel representing the NYSE which conducted hearings and heard testimony regarding allegations of Rutherford’s misconduct. The jurisdiction of this court to review decisions of the Commission resides with 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(l) (1982). We review the factual findings of the Commission to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. See 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(4) (1982). The Commission’s conclusions of law are to be set aside if arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) (1982).

On March 18, 1983, Rutherford was hired by Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (“Dean Witter”) to work at its branch office in Ventu-ra, California as a registered representative of that firm. On April 6,1983, Rutherford completed and signed a Uniform Application for Securities…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.