Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 548 F.2d 615 - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Brooks

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

548 F.2d 615 · 1977

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably Gaulton v. Reno Paint & Wallpaper Co. (1979), Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Leach (1978)

13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

11019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Charles R. Little, Cross-Appellee v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cross-Appellant · Clara Goldenberg, Formerly Clara Littman v. Bache and Company, Bache and Company v. Clara Goldenberg, Formerly Clara Littman · Deese v. Double D Dredging Co. · Gordon v. duPont Glore Forgan Inc. · Horne v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To adopt such an argument would permit commodity futures investors knowingly to accept extensions of credit from a broker which violate the Board of Trade's rules or regulations and repudiate losses that ensue or accept profits that follow. The only risk to the investor would be his initial deposit in a margin account, "initial margin", which represents only a fraction of the potential losses or hoped for profits. We do not accept this position . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a sophisticated commodity futures investor who at all times possessed knowledge of his deficient margin account status ... should not be required to pay back any remaining indebtedness because the extension of credit violated a rule or regulation of the Chicago Board of Trade”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.