Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
United States Supreme Court
456 U.S. 353, 102 S. Ct. 1825, 72 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1982)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
A number of customers (plaintiffs) filed complaints in federal district court against their commodity broker, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill) (defendant), alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), including the malfunction of futures contracts relating to the delivery of Maine potatoes in May 1976. The customers were all speculators in the commodity markets, meaning that they took their positions for investment purposes. Merrill argued that their customers had no ability to sue them for violations of the CEA, because the CEA did not provide a private right of action and could be enforced only by the federal government, the registered exchanges, or the designated self-regulatory organizations. The court of appeals held that a private right of action was available, and Merrill petitioned for review, arguing in part that even if hedgers could maintain such an action, speculators could not.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
