Damato v. Hermanson’s Empirical Analysis
153 F.3d 464 · 1998
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute & Holy Land Foundation (2002), Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, Inc. (2000)
16 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 13C · 7 U.S.C. § 25 · 7 U.S.C. § 6B
Relies on Bennett v. Spear · Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Mart Corporation v. Cartier Inc 47th Street Photo Inc · Pinter v. Dahl
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who commits, or who willfully aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures the commission of, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, or any of the rules, regulations, or orders issued pursuant to this chapter, or who acts in combination or concert with any other person in any such violation, or who willfully causes an act to be done or omitted which if directly performed or omitted by him or another would be a violation of the provisions of this chapter or any of such rules, regulations, or orders may be held responsible for such violation as a principal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not require that an aider and abettor independently satisfy subsections (A) through (D), but rather creates, on its own, a private cause of action against an aider and abettor who aids and abets a principal in undertaking one of the specifically enumerated transactions in subsections (A) through (D).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in order to state . . . a claim against [a defendant] . . . plaintiffs must allege that [the defendant] (1) had knowledge of the principal's .. . intent to commit a violation of the Act; (2) had the intent to further that violation; and (3) committed some act in furtherance of the principal's objective.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Richard Nicholas
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.