Legal Opinion
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided February 9, 1993No. 89 C 0773PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the court is the motion of defendants Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. (“Shearson”) and Nick DiMinico (“DiMini-co”) to partially vacate an arbitration award. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
FACTS
In October, 1985, the plaintiffs, Antonio C. Mastrobuono and Diana G. Mastrobuono (the “Mastrobuonos”), opened a brokerage account with Shearson. The Mastrobuo-nos’ account was solicited by DiMinico, who was the registered representative servicing their account. Upon opening their account, the Mastrobuonos entered into a Client Agreement (the “Agreement”)…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Antonio C. Mastrobuono and Diana G. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., a Corporation, Nick Diminico, Richard F. Benzer and Mark StevensonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Roubik v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Mulder v. DonaldsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. JanaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.