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

Fifth Circuit

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

453 F.2d 417, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12029

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 4, 1972·No. 71-2409·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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.

1

. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

1

. 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.

Carl R. Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 453 F.2d 417, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 12029 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

453 F.2d 417 (Carl R. Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related