Citation network
Merrill Lynch Vs. Curran
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 353 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Merrill Lynch v. CurranSearch
-
U.S. 353 (1982) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. CurranSearch
-
The 1921 statute was held unconstitutional as an improper exercise of the taxing power in Hill v. WallaceSearch
-
reenacted in the Grain Futures Act, 42 Stat. 998, and upheld under the commerce power in Chicago Board of Trade v. OlsenSearch
-
CEA. The court granted summary judgment on all claims seeking recovery under that statute. National Super Spuds, Inc. v. NewSearch
-
Leist v. SimplotSearch
-
right of action under the CEA were incorrectly decided, and that a fair application of the criteria identified in Cort v. AshSearch
-
Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
of a special class, the judiciary normally recognized a remedy for members of that class. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. RigsbySearch
-
require explicit statutory authorization for familiar remedies to enforce statutory obligations. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
Virginian R. Co. v. SystemSearch
-
Deckert v. IndependenceSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and purpose and of the traditional modes by which courts compel performance of legal obligations. See Board of Comm'rs v. UnitedSearch
-
statute, courts are not denied this traditional remedy because it is not specifically authorized. Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. RigsbySearch
-
Steele v. LouisvlleSearch
-
Tunstall v. BrotherhoodSearch
-
De Lima v. BidwellSearch
-
Montana-Dakota Co. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
In Cort v. AshSearch
-
of a more careful scrutiny of legislative intent than Rigsby had required. Our cases subsequent to Cort v. AshSearch
-
Texas Industries, Inc. v. RadcliffSearch
-
Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. NationalSearch
-
question Page 456 U. S. 379 is whether Congress intended to preserve the preexisting remedy. In Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
dictated by Cort v. AshSearch
-
U.S. at 441 U. S. 698 -699. See California v. SierraSearch
-
The routine recognition of a private remedy under the CEA prior to our decision in Cort v. AshSearch
-
The Court described that remedy in Blue Chip Page 456 U. S. 380 Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that there was an implied private right of action under the Rule. Kardon v. NationalSearch
-
of the District Courts and Courts of Appeals that such a cause of action did exist. Superintendent of Insurance v. BankersSearch
-
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. UnitedSearch
-
Such a conclusion was, of course, entirely consistent with the Court's recognition in J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSearch
-
that the remedy was available. The point is well illustrated by this Court's opinion in Chicago Mercantile Exchange v. DeaktorSearch
-
In view of the absence of any dispute about the proposition prior to the decision of Cort v. AshSearch
-
in which Congress legislated in 1974. Cf. Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
See California v. SierraSearch
-
framed in general terms, and do not purport to confer special rights on any identifiable class of persons. Under Cort v. AshSearch
-
But we are not faced with the Cort v. AshSearch
-
cause of action as a tool for enforcement of the self-regulation concept of the CEA. To the extent that the Cort v. AshSearch
-
Blue Chip Stamps v. ManorSearch
-
Together with No. 80-757, New York Mercantile Exchange et al. v. LeistSearch
-
No. 80-895, Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc. v. LeitSearch
-
and No. 80-936, Heinold Commodities, Inc., et al. v. LeistSearch
-
six major legislative enactments. The Future Trading Act, 42 Stat. 187 (1921), was declared unconstitutional in Hill v. WallaceSearch
-
F.2d 216 (1980). Accord, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. GoldmanSearch
-
Hirk v. Agri-ResearchSearch
-
Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96, 103, n. 8 (CA7 1977). See also Master Commodities, Inc. v. TexasSearch
-
Rivers v. RosenthalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial