Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banner Fund International’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.3d 602 · 2000
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 38 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Waterhouse v. District of Columbia (2002), Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency (2003)
33 federal appellate · 38 district · 2 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
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson · Penn General Casualty Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schnader · Foley Bros. v. Filardo
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he causal connection required is between the amount by which the defendant was unjustly enriched,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]isgorgement is an equitable obligation to return a sum equal to the amount wrongfully obtained, rather than a requirement to replevy a specific asset.”). . SEC v. Ralston Purina, 346 U.S. 119, 124 , 73 S.Ct. 981 , 97 L.Ed. 1494 (1953). . See, e.g., SEC v. Universal Exp., Inc., 438 Fed.Appx. 23, 26 (2d Cir.2011); SEC v. Cavanagh, No. 98 Civ. 1818, 2004 WL 1594818 , at (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 16, 2004), aff'd by Cavanagh, 445 F.3d at 116-17. . See, e.g., SEC v. Rosenfeld, No. 97 Civ.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set- forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.”
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.