Blau v. Albert’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2005
10 federal appellate · 1 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. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Cella v. United States · Smolowe v. Delendo Corp. · Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank · Garrison v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I)t would be a simple matter for the unscrupulous to avoid the salutary effect of Section 16(b) which provides a remedy for the recovery of short term profits, simply by failing to file monthly reports in violation of subdivision (a) and thereby concealing from prospective plaintiffs the information they would need to adequately protect their interests. Such a construction would reward the violation of the statute and would manifestly frustrate congressional intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. William R. Whittaker, on Behalf of Himself, and of the Estate of Beulah Whittaker v. Whittaker Corporation, a California Corporation, William R. Whittaker, on Behalf of Himself, and of the Estate of Beulah Whittaker v. Whittaker Corporation, a California Corporation · Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp.“The moving defendant would have me distinguish the instant case from Gross-man, on the ground that there is no claim of fraud here and that no fraud could in fact have been practiced upon plaintiff since he did not become a stockholder of Bellanca until after the last of the forms 4 were filed and then almost three years after the transactions complained of. But the only fraud necessary to invoke the federal equitable doctrine is a violation of the statutory policy against trading by insiders. “Concealment of that violation, whether intentional or inadvertent, effectively prevents suit and demands the ‘mitigating construction’ of the statute of limitations given by the court in other contexts.” Cook & Feldman, Insider Trading under the Securities Exchange Act, 66 Harv.L.Rev. 385, 413 (1953).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in good faith in connection with a debt previously contracted....”
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.