Whittaker v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis
226 F.2d 868 · 1955
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1990 · most notably Pinter v. Dahl (1988), Myzel v. Fields (1967)
19 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Wilko v. Swan · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United States · Ring v. Spina · Gins v. Mauser Plumbing Supply 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants’ next contention is that appellees are entitled to recover only the amounts paid for the ‘securities’, not the expenditure for equipment or second well payments. They maintain that this is not the usual action in equity for rescission, but is an action under a specific statute which grants a specific right of recovery and that the right of recovery is limited to the ‘consideration paid’ for the security purchased. Appellants adjudge the distended payments to be outside the definition of ‘security’ and accordingly not a part of the consideration paid. We do not agree. The securities themselves created the secondary obligations when oil was reached. Also these payments were made for the purpose of rendering more valuable the primary securities. It would be a perversion of the statute to allow remittances made in conjunction with a void and unlawful security to be exempt from restitution, and would permit unjust enrichment under the guise of statutory definition.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) The district courts of the United States * * * shall have jurisdiction of offenses and violations under this subchapter and under the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission in respect thereto, * * *. Any such suit or action may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, or in the district where the sale took place, if the defendant participated therein, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or where-ever the defendant may be found.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly— “(1) to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell * * * such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise ; or “(2) to carry or cause to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, any such security for the purpose oí sale or for delivery after sale.””
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.