Brown v. Bullock’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (1979), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran (1982)
22 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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. § 19 (§ 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 79 (Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Bell v. Hood · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Morissette v. United States · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he policy and purposes of this title, in accordance with which the provisions of this title shall be interpreted, are to mitigate and, so far as is feasible, to eliminate the conditions enumerated in this section which adversely affect the national public interest and the interest of investors.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Act is to be sharply contrasted with the much narrower Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The 1933 and 1934 Acts articulated only a policy of disclosure and securities registration and the regulation of certain securities practices. On the other hand, the 1940 Act placed the investment company business under close but workable regulation. One of the cogent reasons for the passage of the 1940 Act was the inadequacy of the 1933 and 1934 Acts to cope with the grave abuses and evils that had developed in some quarters of the investment company business.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Implied rights of action are not contingent upon statutory language which affirmatively indicates that they are intended. On the contrary, they are implied unless the legislation evidences a contrary intention. Brown v. Bullock , D.C., 194 F.Supp. 207, 224, aff'd on other grounds, 2 Cir., 294 F.2d 415 ; cited in Wheeldin v. Wheeler , 373 U.S. 647 at 661, 662 [83 S.Ct. 1441 at 1450, 10 L.Ed.2d 605] . . . (Brennan, J., dissenting).' 67”
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.