Wright v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.2d 89 · 1940
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Smolowe v. Delendo Corp. (1943), Davis v. Pennzoil Co. (1970)
41 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 781 · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78S (§ 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Y (§ 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Morgan v. United States · Sproles v. Binford · Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. · New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall have Exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The petitioner urges that the order of expulsion is unduly harsh; that an order of suspension would have accorded investors all the protection they need. So far as appears this was Wright’s first infraction of the statute. For many years he has been operating in Wall Street and his transactions in Kinner stock are the only blemish upon his reputation. There is nothing to indicate that he is an habitual manipulator or would be likely to try to manipulate the market in the future. To deprive him for all time of an opportunity to pursue his calling in a lawful manner does seem severe. But a majority of the court hold the view that we are without power to supervise the Commission’s discretionary determination that expulsion of the petitioner is necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors. The writer of this opinion does not share that view, believing that under the power conferred upon this court to “modify”, as well as to affirm or to set aside an order in whole or in part, we may reduce the relief accorded investors. My own opinion is that the Commission should be directed to reduce it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“authorizes an order of expulsion not as a penalty but as a means of protecting investors, if in the Commission's opinion such action is necessary or appropriate to that end.... [T]he purpose of the order is remedial, not penal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.