113 Wash. 2d 148 - Hoffer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi (1997), 127 Wash. 2d 17 - Schaaf v. Highfield (1995)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 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. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003)
Relies on Pinter v. Dahl · 109 Wash. 2d 107 - Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System · State v. Garcia · 101 Wash. 2d 481 - State v. Gore · 110 Wash. 2d 415 - Hoffer v. State
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly: (1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (2) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or (3) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is well settled that the Supreme Court's construction of a similarly worded federal statute, although often persuasive, `is not controlling in our interpretation of a state statute.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“person or one of the limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance [the defendant] intends to supply the information or knows that the recipient intends to supply it”. (Italics ours.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552(2)(a) (1977). The State argues that the information at issue here was intended to he transmitted to the general investing public, a group that it contends is not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.