Halsted v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.2d 660 · 1950
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 1978 · most notably Studebaker Corporation v. Richard D. Gittlin (1966), Richard A. Williams and Alfred S. Trask v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia, Leonard N. Bebchick and Daniel W. Gottlieb v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (1969)
23 federal appellate · 8 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 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange— (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““To construe the provisions of Section 12(e) as covering only the solicitation of ‘any proxy, power of attorney, consent, or authorization’ in haec verba would defeat the patent congressional intent to give the Securities & Exchange Commission a needed measure of control over the relationships between stockholders and persons who seek to represent them in reorganization proceedings.” Halsted v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 86 U. S.App.D.C. 352, 182 F.2d 660, 664 (1950)”
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.