Charles Edward Morgan, Jr. v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Edward Morgan, Jr. v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1985 · …absent an express . . . contract there is no fiduciary duty unless the customer is infirm or ignorant of business affairs ⚠ not in text
50 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Boeck (wis, 1985-12-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Boeck (2×)
Wis. · 1985 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
absent an express . . . contract there is no fiduciary duty unless the customer is infirm or ignorant of business affairs
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. Mishkin (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.)
S.D.N.Y. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 111 (N.D.Ala.1971), aff 'd, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Arst v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
D. Kan. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
If a broker’s duty is merely to execute an order, the broker’s duty “would be very narrow — primarily not to make unauthorized trades.” Id. at 824 ; see Limbaugh v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 732 F.2d 859, 862 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 111 (N.D.Ala.1971) (“The affair entrusted to a broker who is to buy and sell through an exchange is to execute the order, not to discuss its wisdom.”), aff'd, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972)).
discussed Cited "see" Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Perelle (2×)
Pa. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 111 (N.D.Ala.1971) aff'd., 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Carl M. Limbaugh v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., a Corporation
11th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 111 (N.D.Ala.1971), aff'd, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that there was no fiduciary relationship between commodities broker and his customer, and that broker owed no duty to communicate information which would affect customer’s market position): The relationship of agent and principal only existed between plaintiff and defendant when an order to buy or sell was placed, and terminated when the transaction was complete.
discussed Cited "see" Schenck v. Bear, Stearns & Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
People v. Mercer Hicks Corp., 4 Misc.2d 55 , 155 N.Y.S.2d 740, 744 (Sup.Ct.1956), aff’d, 3 A.D.2d 708 , 160 N.Y.S.2d 806 (1st Dept. 1957); see Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, *947 Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 110-11 (N.D.Ala.1971), aff’d, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Nappy (In Re Nappy)
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
The affair entrusted to a broker who is to buy or sell through an exchange is to execute the order, not to discuss its wisdom.” Limbaugh v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 732 F.2d 859, 862 (11th Cir.1984); see also Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F.Supp. 107, 111 (N.D.Ala.1971), aff'd, 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Puckett v. Rufenacht, Bromagen & Hertz
Miss. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Robinson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 107 (N.D.Ala. 1971), aff'd. 453 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1972), Leib v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 461 F. Supp. 951, 952-953 (E.D.Mich. 1978), Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Leach, 583 F.2d 367 (7th Cir.1978), Caravan Mobile Home Sales v. Lehman Bros.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Edward Morgan, Jr.
v.
Clarence Jones, Sheriff
71-2753.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 5, 1972.
453 F.2d 417
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: #35,122 of 633,719
Citer courts: Wisconsin Supreme Court (2)

453 F.2d 417

Charles Edward MORGAN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Clarence JONES, Sheriff, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 71-2753 Summary Calendar.[**]

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 5, 1972.

Charles E. Morgan, Jr., pro se.

Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Tex., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN, and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The judgment below is affirmed for the reasons stated in the order of the district court. Loren v. Texas, 5 Cir. 1971, 440 F.2d 1182.

**

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I