Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 573 · 1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2014
3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 Chipser v. Kohlmeyer & Co. · 461 F. Supp. 951 - Leib v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith · Moody v. Bache & Co. · Thompson v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. · Karlen v. Ray E. Friedman & Co. Commodities
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Presentation of the risk disclosure statement does not relieve a broker of any obligation under the [Act] to disclose all material information about risk to customers.... Furthermore, this case involves affirmative misrepresentations as to risk_ Oral representations may effectively nullify the warnings in the statement by discounting its general significance and its relevance to the customer’s particular situation.... [The risk disclosure statement] does not warn the customer to disbelieve representations that certain trading strategies can limit losses, that the broker’s scheme can overcome inherent market risks, or that certain commodities are less volatile. Those unfamiliar with the workings of markets are unlikely to understand that no broker can eliminate or diminish risk. The customer may be led to believe that the course of trading on which he or she embarks is not susceptible to the extreme risk that the statement warns "can” or "may” accompany trading. Further, the statement uses terms of art that require explanation, without which the significance of the warning to the particular customer may not be understood. Thus, it is not logically inconsistent to believe the warning on the risk disclosure statement while at the same time believing representations such as were made by [the AP].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“requires consideration of the degree of trust placed in the broker and the intelligence and personality of the customer.”
2 later decisions 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.