Smith v. Bear’s Empirical Analysis
237 F.2d 79 · 1956
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Standard Oil Company of California v. Moore (1958), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,710 Stanley S. Pearlstein v. Scudder & German, a Partnership (1970)
42 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 78G (§ 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1732
Relies on Palmer v. Hoffman · Johnson v. Stevenson · City of Morgantown v. Royal Insurance · Dioguardi v. Durning · Andrews v. California Trust 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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a broker or dealer * * * extends credit to a customer in violation of the Act or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, all to induce a customer to purchase securities, then the broker has violated the law and the customer may recover from him any loss proximately resulting therefrom.” ( 237 F.2d at 87-88 ; emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In California, parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of mutual mistake a written instrument does not truly express the intention of the parties. California Civil Code, Section 1640. This exception to the parol evidence rule is universally recognized. Seé 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 978. “Extrinsic evidence may be introduced to show mutual mistake in an action in equity to reform the instrument. Irving v. Cunningham, 1884, 66 Cal. 15 , 4 P. 766 . Such evidence may be interposed as a defense to an action at law on the written agreement. Massie v. Chatom, 1912, 163 Cal. 772 , 127 P. 56 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When, through fraud, mistake, or accident, a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded.””
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.