U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1972

Carl R. Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided January 4, 1972 · Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson

453 F.2d 417; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12029 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George S. Brown, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant., N. Lee Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees; Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner & Clark, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Jackson v. Mishkin (In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.) (District Court, S.D. New York 2001)
Mishkin Ex Rel. Liquidation of the Business of Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. v. Ensminger (In re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1999)
Hand v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. (Tex. App. 1994)
Puckett v. Rufenacht, Bromagen & Hertz (Miss. 1991)
Schenck v. Bear, Stearns & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1979)
Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., and Hayden Stone, Inc. v. William H. Leach (7th Cir. 1978)
Leib v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1978)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff-appellant, a practicing physician and attorney, brought this diversity action against his former stockbroker, Merrill Lynch, for substantial losses claimed to have been sustained by him in trading in commodity futures (pork bellies and hogs) because the broker negligently failed to pass on to him pertinent market information in the broker’s hands. Merrill Lynch counterclaimed for brokerage commissions. Following a non-jury trial the district court entered judgment against Dr. Robinson on his claim and in favor of Merrill Lynch as to its counter-claim. 1 This appeal timely followed.

Our review of the record, the briefs of counsel and relevant legal authorities leaves us unpersuaded that the trial court committed error in any of the particulars asserted on appeal. The judgment below is in all respects

Affirmed.

. The district court’s memorandum opinion is reported as Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., N.D.Ala.1971, 337 F.Supp. 107.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.