International Trading, Ltd. v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably Leist v. Simplot (1980), 38 N.C. App. 414 - Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc. v. Hunsucker (1978)
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 11 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 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 6
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · National League of Cities v. Usery · Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25 · Campbell v. Hussey · Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under the exclusive grant of jurisdiction to the Commission, the authority in the Commodity Exchange Act (and the regulations issued by the Commission) would preempt the field insofar as futures regulation is concerned. Therefore, if any substantive State law regulating futures trading was contrary to or inconsistent with Federal law, the Federal law would govern. In view of the broad grant of authority to the Commission to regulate the futures trading industry, the Conferees do not contemplate that there will be a need for any supplementary regulation by the States.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We do not agree with appellee that preemption will prevent the state from protecting its citizens from fraud. There is no reason why the state cannot prosecute an offender under such provisions as § 41-2203 (Crim.Code, 1976). There is no bar of actions by persons defrauded to recover money obtained from them by fraud. Such actions could not constitute any realistic threat of interference with the federal regulatory scheme and the act certainly does not afford protection of fraudulent conduct.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The argument that (CFTC exclusive jurisdiction) relates only to regulation of commodities, not securities, is unavailing here because of the clear language of the act bringing commodity options within the purview of the act.”
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.