239 F. Supp. 2d 388 - Wallace v. Buttar’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Wilko v. Swan · Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. · Hopkins v. Reeves · Terry v. Terry
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a primary violation by the controlled person, control of the primary violator by the targeted defendant, and that the controlling person was in some meaningful sense a culpable participant in the fraud perpetrated by the controlled person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Buttar“imposes liability on the employer of those committing fraud in their employment. The entity that could have been held liable for Winston's fraud under the doctrine ... was Montrose, Winston's employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Buttar“the control person must additionally possess the necessary mental culpability by either knowing, or failing to know due to their [sic] own recklessness or negligence, of the alleged wrongdoing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Buttar
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.