Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.3d 156 · 1998
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Sandoval v. Reno (1999), Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (2007)
27 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Lindh v. Murphy · American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The School Districts' position ignores two significant and intertwined facts. First, as noted earlier, the RICO Amendment removed securities fraud as a predicate offense in a civil RICO action. Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ... and SEC Rule 10b-5 ... are directed at fraud " in connection with the purchase or sale" of securities. The School Districts' position ignores the reality that the same set of facts can support convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and securities fraud without giving rise to any multiplicity problems.... Consequently, a plaintiff cannot avoid the RICO Amendments' bar by pleading mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud as predicate offenses in a civil RICO action if the conduct giving rise to those predicate offenses amounts to securities fraud.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1.There is a strong presumption against applying a statute in a manner that would attach "new legal consequences” to events completed before the statute's enactment, 1.e., a manner that would "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties.” 2. If Congress has focused on the issue, "has determined that the benefits of retro-activity outweigh the potential for disruption or unfairness,” and has provided unambiguous evidence of its conclusion by directing that retroactive effect be given, then, and only then, will the presumption be overridden. 3.Consistent with these principles, normal rules of statutory construction "may apply to remove ... the possibility of retro-activity.” Nothing short of an unambiguous directive, however, will justify giving a statute a retroactive effect. Thus, when normal rules of statutory construction indicate that a statute is intended to be applied in a manner involving no retroactive effect, a Court need inquire no further. On the other hand, if such construction suggests that a retroactive effect may have been intended, the traditional presumption nevertheless bars retroactive application unless an unambiguous congressional directive is found.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.”
2 later decisions 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.