Fisher v. Schilder’s Empirical Analysis
131 F.2d 522 · 1942
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 1977
17 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on United States v. Norris · United States v. Lair · Pharr v. United States · Berlin v. United States · Creech v. Hudspeth
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While a plea of nolo contendere does not create an estoppel, it has all the effects of a plea of guilty for the purposes of the criminal case. “In United States v. Norris, 281 U.S. 619, 623 , 50 S.Ct. 424, 425 , 74 L.Ed. 1076 , the court said: “ ‘After the plea, nothing is left but to render judgment, for the obvious reason that in the face of the plea no issue of fact exists, and none can be made while the plea remains of record. Regarded as evidence upon the question of guilt or innocence, * * * the plea of nolo contendere * * * for that case, was as conclusive as a plea of guilty would have been.’ ‘‘In United States v. Lair, 8 Cir., 195 F. 47, 52 , cited with approval in the Norris case, supra, the court ■said: “ ‘In fact, the defendant admitted that he committed the offense charged within that district; for his plea of nolo contendere is in effect a plea of guilty to every essential element of the offense well pleaded in the charge against him, and warrants his conviction thereof without more * * * though the conviction cannot rightly be used against him in any other case. Such is the effect of the plea of nolo contendere.’ “With respect to affording a basis for a judgment of conviction and the imposition of sentence, there is no substantial difference between a plea of nolo contendere and a plea of guilty. * * * ” 131 F.2d at page 524 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Petitioner contends that the several counts of the indictment do not charge offenses against the United States. The argument is directed primarily to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4. The definition of the term ‘security' in § 201 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, reads in part, ‘fractional undivided interest in oil,-gas, or other mineral rights.’ 15 U.S. C.A. § 77b(1), 48 Stat. 905 . Counsel for petitioner urge that the indictment charged entire interests in oil and gas leases rather than undivided interests. Count 1 of the indictment sets up an assignment of an oil and gas lease. The assignment purports to cover certain described acreage out of a community lease. The indictment alleges that it was represented that the assignment gave to the assignee a fractional interest in the community lease. It also charged as one of the securities involved fractional undivided interests in oil and gas royalties. What we have said respecting count 1 is likewise true of counts 2, 3, and 4. It follows, we think, that the indictment charged a security within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.””
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.