Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Merrill Lynch Trust Co. FSB

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 24, 2007No. 04-0865Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice HECHT,

joined by Justice MEDINA, and joined by Justice O’NEILL as to Part I, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

By agreeing to arbitrate all controversies with their broker, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”), Juan and Norma Alaniz also agreed to arbitrate claims against Merrill Lynch employees, including Henry Medina, for which Merrill Lynch could be liable because of the employment relationship. But Merrill Lynch cannot be held vicariously liable for Medina’s actions, as it might ordinarily be, because the Alanizes have affirmatively disclaimed such…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
  2. In Re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Meyer v. WMCO-GP, LLCTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Oats v. Dublin National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1936

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API