Delatour v. Meredith’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.2d 594 · 1944
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2002
6 federal appellate ·
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. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Charles Hughes & Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Baird v. Frankline · Albin v. Cowing Pressure Relieving Joint Co. · In re Hotel Governor Clinton, Inc. · Federal Land Bank of Springfield v. Hansen
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he courts should examine closely any petition for an impounding order to ascertain whether the situation is so unusual as to justify application of the exception. In the present case there surely was no occasion for taking this drastic step. The causes alleged in the petition were all general and to the effect that the reorganization would run more smoothly without outside interference. ... [T]he grant of the petition was actually made for the new cause, conceived by the court, that there was danger that the security holders might be persuaded to sell their securities for less than their true worth. Such a rationalization, however, is also of doubtful merit. This is indicated by the fact that the bonds in question were quoted in the over-the-counter market in New York City, and bondholders had hence only to look at current quotations to find what their bonds would bring in the marketplace. Id. at 596-97 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any event, if there is real need of such protection, it would seem that it could be obtained by other means less directly destructive of the statutory objections. .... Section 166 requires, after the lists are impounded, that every bona fide security holder have a continued right to their use. This right is granted in absolute terms; the court can place restrictions only upon the manner in which it shall be exercised. Thus, the court, on a showing of grounds therefor, might provide that all communications be given to the trustee, who in turn would mail them to the various names on the list, thereby fulfilling the dual aims of keeping secret the lists and maintaining free facilities for communication between security holders. Id. at 597 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The courts fully recognized the legislative objective of free communication among security holders for purposes of organization and exchange of views.””
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.