SZYZSKOWSKI, RICHARD J., PEOPLE v

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “Vanguard charged the Taksirs a $7 commission for each of their respective purchases” of Nokia Corporation stock
• noting that “Vanguard charged the Taksirs a $7 commission for each of their respective purchases” of Nokia Corporation stock
• noting that Fleming and Goldberg v. Bank of America, N.A., 846 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), were factually distinguishable because those plaintiffs conceded that the alleged misconduct “was plainly material to brokerage customers”
• “[T]he Supreme Court in Troice made clear that: (1) materiality is relevant to the analysis of SLUSA’s prohibitive scope; and (2) Troice clarifies—rather than modifies—Dabit.”
• “[T]he Supreme Court in Troice made clear that: (1) materiality is relevant to the analysis of SLUSA’s prohibitive scope; and (2) Troice clarifies—rather than modifies—Dabit.”
• “In contrast with such significant investments, single-digit differences in trading commissions are objectively immaterial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).