Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co.

Fifth Circuit

Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co.

686 F.2d 297

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 20, 1982·No. No. 79-1313·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KRAVITCH, HENDERSON and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court, -U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2228, 72 L.Ed.2d 841, has vacated our judgment (see 634 F.2d 774) and remanded for further consideration in light of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982). The Court in that decision held that an implied private right of action does exist under the Commodity Exchange Act.

The district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore affirmed with all costs awarded against Rosenthal & Company.

AFFIRMED.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KRAVITCH, HENDERSON and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court, -U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2228, 72 L.Ed.2d 841, has vacated our judgment (see 634 F.2d 774) and remanded for further consideration in light of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982). The Court in that decision held that an implied private right of action does exist under the Commodity Exchange Act.

The district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore affirmed with all costs awarded against Rosenthal & Company.

AFFIRMED.

Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co., 686 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

686 F.2d 297 (Rivers v. Rosenthal & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related