Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 648 FSUPP2D 525 - Kirschner v. Bennett

Kirschner v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
February 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(Pl. Opp. at 20.) As to this proposition, however, the Trustee cites no relevant precedent, perhaps because, as cases like Szur demonstrate, the fiduciary duty is limited by the broker's exercise of discretion on behalf of the customer, not by whether there is a colorable argument that the broker is a crook. The Trustee's focus on”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is uncontested that a broker ordinarily has no duty to monitor a nondiscretionary account, or to give advice to such a customer on an ongoing basis. The broker’s duties ordinarily end after each transaction is done, and thus do not include a duty to offer unsolicited information, advice, or warnings concerning the customer’s investments. A nondiscretionary customer by definition keeps control over the account and has full responsibility for trading decisions. On a transaction-by-transaction basis, the broker owes duties of diligence and competence in executing the client’s trade orders, and is obliged to give honest and complete information when recommending a purchase or sale.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[RCM]'s sole obligation shall be to return to [FX Customers] such cash, like amounts of similar cash, securities and other property (or the cash value thereof in the event of any liquidation of collateral) to the extent they are not deemed to be collateral to secure Transactions entered into pursuant to this Agreement with any Refco Entities or have not been applied against obligations owing by [FX Customers] to Refco Entities, whether as a result of the liquidation of positions and any Transactions entered into pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise.”
    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.