Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 FSUPP 59 - Lennerth v. Mendenhall

Lennerth v. Mendenhall’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011 · most notably Pinter v. Dahl (1988), Myzel v. Fields (1967)

43 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

480196419701980199020002010decided

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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Dioguardi v. Durning · Elias Siegelman, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Eva Siegelman, Deceased v. Cunard White Star Limited · Gins v. Mauser Plumbing Supply Co. · Jameson v. Jameson

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

  1. “* * * the line of demarcation must be drawn in terms of cause and effect: To borrow a phrase from the law of negligence, did the injury to the plaintiff flow directly and proximately from the actions of this particular defendant?”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is obvious that the cause of action arises exclusively from conduct and acts which, whether or not they violate the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 * * * unquestionably constitute violations of the Securities Act of 1933 * * *. In this aspect the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the fact that the pleader referred to another statute * * * is immaterial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To make out a prima facie case under [the registration provisions of] 5 in order to authorize 12 relief, the [purchaser] must establish: (1) there was a sale, or offer of sale, of a security; (2) there was no registration statement in effect at that time; (3) the sale was enhanced by the use of interstate transportation or communication, or the mails.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.