Case Citator › Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
7 F.3d 1110
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
61 of 61
Citing cases (total)
61
Treatment dates
2000–2001
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. remains good law within the limits described below. All 61 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Two courts declined to extend its rule allowing a nonsignatory agent to arbitrate under its principal's agreement to the reverse situation, where a party sought to bind a nonsignatory principal through an agent's agreement. Both limits are listed below. The 2001 Third Circuit decision appears twice in the source collection; it is listed once, under its reported opinion. The citing-opinion total is a floor based on the 61 flagged citations because no broader count was available.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

61 later cases cite Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; 61 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The district court declined to use Pritzker to compel a nonsignatory parent company to arbitrate under an agreement signed by its subsidiary.

    E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhodia Fiber & Resin Intermediates · United States District Court for the District of Delaware · filed

    The other Third Circuit case on which defendants rely, Pritzker, turns not on agency principals, but on the construction of the *128arbitration clause at issue. Therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Third Circuit declined to extend Pritzker's agent rule to bind a principal to its agent's arbitration agreement.

    E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S. · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · filed

    Appellants also invoke Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110 (3d Cir. 1993), but Pritzker is inapposite. In Pritzker, we bound an agent to the principal's arbitration agreement. Here, appellants seek to hold a principal to an agent's agreement and the rationale of Pritzker does not apply with equal force.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace