Schwartz v. Bowman’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1980
6 federal appellate ·
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. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1695 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 28 U.S.C. § 2321
Relies on United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Hurn v. Oursler · Far East Conference v. United States · Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The ICC has determined by its orders of June 5, 1945, March 2, 1955 (Division IV) and May 24, 1955, that during the period of time relevant here [January 19, 1954 to February 23, 1954] Alleghany was subject to regulation by the Commission under the Interstate Commerce Act. 2. Such orders insofar as they affect the relevant time period have never been reversed, vacated, set aside or modified in any proceedings to review under the Urgent Deficiencies Act. 3. In the action before the three judge court under that act to review the March 2 and May 24, 1955 orders of the Commission holding Alleghany subject to Interstate Commerce Act regulation, the orders were sustained. 4. If these outstanding orders of the ICC are to be given effect, Alleghany was expressly exempt from the Investment Company Act pursuant to § 3(c)(9) at the time of the Central transaction and was not required to register with the SEC or subject to regulation by that body.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, the threshold jurisdictional question presented [asks:] (1) Did the outstanding orders and decisions of the ICC determine that at all relevant times Alleghany was subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act and was therefore, under the express terms of the Investment Company Act, not an investment company which was required to register with the SEC ? (2) Does the private action at bar necessarily involve directly or indirectly an attack on the validity of such orders and decisions?”
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.