Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.3d 42 - Securities & Exchange Commission v. Warde

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Warde’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.3d 42 · 1998

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2023
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Frank Martinelli Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (1999), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Calvo (2004)

17 federal appellate · 4 district ·

4201998200020102020decided

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 Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Dirks v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. · United States v. Chestman · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian

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

  1. “[s]o long as the measure of disgorgement is reasonable, any risk of uncertainty should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created that uncertainty.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “need not show that the tipper expected or received a specific or tangible benefit in exchange for the tip,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There are objective facts and circumstances that often justify such an inference [of personal benefit]. For example, there may be a relationship between the insider and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the particular recipient. The elements of fiduciary duty and exploitation of nonpublic information also exist when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. The tip and trade resemble trading by the insider himself followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient.”
    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.