Melamed v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
Opinion
Helen MELAMED, Petitioner,
v.
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., and Brian Sheen, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida.
F. Kendall Slinkman, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Bennett Falk and Patricia E. Cowart of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster and Russell, Miami, for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
H. Michael Easley of Easley, Massa and Willits, West Palm Beach, for Brian Sheen.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 453 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young, 456 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 1984), vacated, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1830, 85 L.Ed.2d 131 (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We also have jurisdiction because Melamed declared subsection 517.241(2), Florida Statutes (1983), invalid. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
We approve Melamed in light of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985), and the subsequent vacation and remand of our contrary holding in Young.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
476 So. 2d 140 (Melamed v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.