Greenfield v. Cheek’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Coates v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The United States Supreme Court held in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder [citation omitted] that an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud (scienter) is essential to a private cause of action for damages under § 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5.” 593 P.2d at 296.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gunnison
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.