Shaw v. Dreyfus’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 140 · 1949
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably International Controls Corp. v. Vesco (1974), Blau v. Lamb (1966)
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Old Colony Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Woolford Realty Co. v. Rose · Palmer v. Commissioner · Miles v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Park & Tilford, Inc. v. Schulte
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The generally understood meaning of `purchase' is to acquire something by one's own act or agreement for a price.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * In Park & Tilford v. Schulte, 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 984, 987 , we said that ‘The Act certainly applies as well to executed acquisitions as to executory contracts to acquire.’ But the acquisition there under con sideration was one similar to a purchase. Schulte exercised an option to convert his preferred stock into common stock. Similarly, we would hold that the Act applies as well to executed dispositions as to executory contracts to dispose, provided the disposition is similar to a sale. * * * »>”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Inside’ information which the directors may have cannot possibly be used to the detriment of other stockholders in voting to grant rights to all stockholders of record in proportion to their existing holdings ; all are treated equally. Their preemptive right to be offered the new stock and on equal terms inheres in their original shares and is essentially analogous to a stock dividend.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roberts v. Eaton
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.