Old Naples Securities Inc v. C W’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Russello v. United States · United States v. Gonzales · United States v. Wong Kim Bo · Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Calvert · Securities & Exchange Commission v. F. O. Baroff 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“superfluous” as deposits of cash must be for the purchase of”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. at 1303 (citations omitted). Similarly, claimants who invest directly in a third-party company are not protected by SIPA, even if their broker suggested the investment. Id. SIPA does, however, protect claimants who attempt to invest through their brokerage firm but are defrauded by dishonest brokers. Id. If a claimant intended to have the brokerage purchase securities on the claimant's behalf and reasonably followed the broker's instructions regarding payment, the claimant is a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“22 When a claimant deposits funds with a brokerage for investment, SIPA provides protection even if the claimant does not identify specific securities for the broker to purchase. See id. at 1305 (claimants who wired funds with the intent to purchase”
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.