Fratt v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
203 F.2d 627 · 1953
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 13 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (2008)
80 federal appellate · 13 district · 10 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. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2 · 28 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. · Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp. · Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co. · 69 F. Supp. 512 - Kardon v. National Gypsum Co.
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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think the whole tenor of the Act indicates that its operative procedure is by regulation of security-transfer businesses and persons who function in or through them. That `stock exchange' and `over-the-counter markets' mean, in the Act, any security-transfer business wherein the business of marketing securities is conducted. We think the authors of the Act realized that the remedy of the abuses sought to be applied by the Act would be more or less completely effective in the proportion of security-trading done on or through the established businesses. To this end § 10 was enacted in order that those who desire to promote crooked deals would see little advantage in using devious methods to by-pass the security-dealing business houses under regulation. And, further, that prospective crooked deals would be under a powerful deterrent by reason of the fact that perpetrators of fraud in security exchanges would be in violation of federal laws and, as we shall see in our discussion under the next point to be considered herein, would be answerable in damages in federal courts to those they have injured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Errion v. Connell““We can think of nothing that would tend more toward discouraging trading off the established business markets and out of governmental regulation or that would more certainly tend to deter fraudulent practices in security transactions and thus make the Act more ‘reasonably complete and effective’ than the right of defrauded sellers or buyers of securities to seek redress in damages in federal courts.” 203 F.2d at page 632 .”
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.