Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 F.3d 266 - Newton

Newton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

16 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Kenneth Newton (2001), Jackson v. Mishkin (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.) (2001)

16 district · 2 state decisions

1301990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Eisenberg v. Gagnon · Chasins v. Smith, Barney & Co. · Hughes v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Healey v. Catalyst Recovery of Pennsylvania, Inc.

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

  1. “The duty of best execution, which predates the federal securities laws, has it roots in the common law agency obligations of undivided loyalty and reasonable care that an agent owes to his principal. Since it is understood by all that the client-principal seeks his own economic gain and the purpose of the agency is to help the client-principal achieve that objective, the broker-dealer, absent instructions to the contrary, is expected to use reasonable efforts to maximize the economic benefit to the client in each transaction. The duty of best execution thus requires that a broker-dealer seek to obtain for its customer order the most favorable terms reasonably available under the circumstances.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In concluding as we do, we are not unmindful of the fact, deemed determinative by the district court, that execution of customer orders at the NBBO was a practice ‘widely, if not almost universally followed’ in the securities industry-Under the district court’s logic, a Section 10(b) defendant would be entitled to summary judgement even if it were her regular practice to knowingly violate the duty of best execution, so long as she could identify a sufficient number of other broker-dealers engaged in the same wrongful conduct to be able to argue in good faith that the underlying duty was ‘ambiguous.’ We cannot accept an analysis that would produce such a result. Even a universal industry practice may still be fraudulent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Ascertaining what prices are reasonably available to any particular situation may require a factual inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances.... [...] These factors would appear to vary from class member to class member and, for each class member, from trade to trade. Whether a class member suffered economic loss from a given securities transaction would require proof of the circumstances surrounding each trade, the available alternative prices, and the state of mind of each investor at the time the trade was requested. This Herculean task, involving hundreds of millions of transactions, counsels against finding predominance.”
    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.