Rosenberg v. Hano’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.2d 818 · 1941
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Perry O. Hooper, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Consolidated American Industries, Inc. v. Mountain States Securities Corporation (1960), Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton (1970)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 171 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Cady v. Murphy · Shonts v. Hirliman · United States v. Brown · Fergus County v. Osweiler · United States v. Brown
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be liable to any person who shall purchase or sell any security at a price which was affected by such act or transaction, and the person so injured may sue in law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover the damages sustained as a result of any such act or transaction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) Was the sale made by means of an untrue statement of a material fact to the plaintiff or the omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements in the light of the circumstances under which they may have been made, not misleading? (ii) Did Hayden, Stone & Co., or any person in its employ whose duty it was to give Hayden, Stone & Co. such information, or McCabe, know or could they or any of them have known in the exercise of reasonable care of such untruth or omissión? (iii) Did Page or any agent of his whom he appointed to carry out the sale of his stock obtain any information in the course of the carrying out of his assignment or whose duty it was to give him such information know or could they or any of them have known in the exercise of reasonable care of such untruth or omission? (iv) If the answer to quegr tion (i) is in the affirmative, was Hayden, Stone & Co. acting through McCabe in ¿¡taking such statements or omissions to the plaintiff, the (a) Agent for Page? (b) Agent for both Page & Wilko? (v) Did Haven B. Page, directly or indirectly, control Air Associates, Inc.? (vi) Did the shares sold by Page through Hayden, Stone & Oo. constitute a distribution? (vii) Did McCabe make any statement to Wilko which was the basis of your affirmative answer to question one, and which McCabe was not authorized to make?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)ny person who willfully participates in any act or transaction in violation of subsection (a) ....”
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.