Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 F.2d 40 - Jones v. Kennedy

Jones v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis

121 F.2d 40 · 1941

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably Butz v. Economou (1978), Barr v. Matteo (1959)

24 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

16019411950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 77H (§ 8 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77T (§ 20 of the Securities Act of 1933)

Relies on Spalding v. Vilas · Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Cooper v. O'Connor · Robertson v. Sichel · Mellon v. Brewer

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We consider first those allegations which are based upon the actions of the defendants in connection with the investigations, stop order proceedings, and presentation of evidence to a grand jury. At the outset we call attention to the established law that public officers when acting within the scope of their official authority are immune from suits for damages. It is not necessary to outline again the development of, and merit in, this principle. The plaintiff recognizes the doctrine and accepts the challenge of showing acts which fall outside of the immunity.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Our attention has not been called to any statute or rule that prevents attorneys employed by the [Securities and Exchange] Commission from representing government officers sued in their individual capacity for acts growing out of or connected with their official duties. Without prohibitory language, their appearance in the'case is fair and proper (at p. 45).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the carrying out of investigations and the turning over of evidence to the Attorney General for presentation to a grand jury come under the authorized duties of the Commission. And likewise, plaintiff has not met, in these allegations, the task of showing acts which fall outside of the [SEC’s] immunity.”
    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.