Colby v. Klune’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 872 · 1949
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 185 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Reliance Electric Company v. Emerson Electric Company (1972), Wolf v. Weinstein (1963)
60 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Arnstein v. Porter · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford v. Ward · Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States · Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp.
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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a corporate employee performing important executive duties of such character that he would be likely, in discharging those duties, to obtain confidential information about the company's affairs that would aid him if he engaged in personal market transactions. It is immaterial how his functions are labeled or how defined in the by-laws, or that he does or does not act under the supervision of some other corporate representatives.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be that the S.E.C. had such statutory authority to issue the Rule 15 that it binds the courts. Even so, there remains much room for inquiring into the facts at a trial. For the functions of a ‘vice-president’ or ‘comptroller’ are not so well settled as to be self-evident, and there is need for evidence concerning those functions. Under that Rule as we interpret it, it does not matter whether or how the by-laws of this particular company define the duties of such officers. The question is what this particular employee was called upon to do in this particular company, i. e., the relation between his authorized activities and those of this corporation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . . it is significant that the employee has or has not ‘responsibility for the policy of at least a substantial segment of the corporation’s affairs’ and participates ‘in executive councils of the corporation as an officer.’ ” 178 F.2d at 875 .”
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.