Legal Opinion
Nagel v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided September 3, 1999No. 96 C 2675 et alPublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judged †
Plaintiffs in these five consolidated actions (Nos. 96 C 2675, 96 C 2741, 96 C 2879, 96 C 2972, and 96 C 5215) are farmers who entered into hedge-to-arrive (hta) contracts with grain merchants (including grain elevators). Under a standard hedge-to-arrive contract the farmer promises to deliver a stated quantity of grain for a price, linked to the price of a futures contract that expires in the delivery month. From the farmer’s perspective, this is a normal forward contract that shifts to the buyer the risk that the market price will fall before delivery…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Landreth Timber Co. v. LandrethSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- John D. Szabo, Doing Business as Zatron v. Bridgeport MacHines Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2001
- Top of Iowa Cooperative v. Sime Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2000
- Lowell E. Harter and Doretta Harter v. Iowa Grain Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Grain Land Coop v. Kar Kim Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Dennis Nagel v. Adm Investor Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.