Independence Shares Corp. v. Deckert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We think the Securities Act does not restrict purchasers seeking relief under its provisions to a money judgment. On the contrary, the Act as a whole indicates an intention to establish a statutory right which the litigant may enforce in designated courts by such legal or equitable actions or proceedings as would normally Be available to him. Undoubtedly any suit to establish the civil liability imposed by the Act must ultimately seek recovery of the consideration paid less income received or damages if the claimant no longer owns the security. Section 12(2), 15 U.S.C. § 771 (2). * * * But Section 12(2) states the legal consequences of conduct proscribed by the Act; it does not purport to state the form of action or procedure the claimant is to employ. “Moreover, in Section 22(a), 15 U.S.C.A. § 77v(a), specified courts are given jurisdiction ‘of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this subchapter.’ The power to enforce implies the power to make effective the right of recovery afforded by the Act. And the power to make the right of recovery effective implies the power to utilize any of the procedures or actions normally available to the litigant according to the exigencies of the particular case. * * *»”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 F. Supp. 999 - Corporation Trust Co. v. Logan · 601 F. Supp. 641 - Brown v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

2. “"[T]hat all of the members of the class must have been seeking or have been entitled to the same kind of relief, i. e., injunctive relief, damages, appointment of a receiver, etc.; one member of the class could not seek damages, another specific performance, another injunctive relief. It does not mean, as the Eighth Circuit assumed in one case, that a spurious class action could not be maintained where each member of the class would be entitled to his individual damages. Such a holding would in effect have restricted the spurious class action to cases involving equitable relief. Other circuit and district courts adopted the more appropriate view that `Common relief may be sought despite the fact that individuals may recover separate judgments different in amounts.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Philadelphia v. Morton Salt Company · Lucas v. Pioneer, Inc.

3. ““The claims of the appellees may not be aggregated and the claim of no one appellee amounts to more than $2,000.” 108 F.2d 51, 53 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.