Blau v. Mission Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a mere transfer between corporate pockets”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blau v. Lamb · Rathborne v. Rathborne

2. ““For the purpose of preventing the unfair use of information which may have been obtained by such beneficial owner, director, or officer by reason of his relationship to the issuer, any profit realized by him from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of such issuer (other than an exempted security) within any period of less than six months, * * * shall inure to and be recoverable by the issuer, irrespective of any intention on the part of such beneficial owner, director, or officer in entering into such transaction of holding the security purchased or of not repurchasing the security sold for a period exceeding six months. * * * This subsection shall not be construed to cover any transaction where such beneficial owner was not such both at the time of the purchase and sale, or the sale and purchase, of the security involved, or any transaction or transactions which the Commission by rules and regulations may exempt as not comprehended within the purpose of this subsection.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 7Sp(b).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 172 F. Supp. 502 - Adler v. Klawans

3. ““The Company believes that Dr. Mencher had no ulterior motive in making the purchases and sales in question and that, although he is liable to the Company under the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, he did not in fact abuse in any way his position as a Director of the Company and that while engaged in these transactions he was not using for his own benefit any confidential information with respect to the Company which he had obtained m his capacity as a Director. Accordingly, the Company does not propose to bring suit against Dr. Mencher under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 239 F. Supp. 792 - Berkwich v. Mencher