Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 F.3d 109 - Stephen Reddy John Sorkvist v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Solomon Mayer Barry Mayer Shb Commodities Inc Maye Commodities Corp Steven Gelbstein

Stephen Reddy John Sorkvist v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Solomon Mayer Barry Mayer Shb Commodities Inc Maye Commodities Corp Steven Gelbstein’s Empirical Analysis

191 F.3d 109 · 1999

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably McCarthy v. Securities & Exchange Commission (2005), Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, Inc. (2000)

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

270199920002010decided

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 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Liteky et al United States · Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a ritualistic incantation of what is well-known in the area of the agency's jurisdiction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “palpably disproportionate to the violation”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “review the record with the purpose of determining whether the finder of fact was justified, i.e., acted reasonably, in concluding that the evidence, including the demeanor of the witnesses, the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and other pertinent circumstances, supported [its] findings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.