Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (2010), Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp. (1985)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Ford v. United States · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who — ■ (1) offers or sells a security in violation of section 77e of this title, or (2) offers or sells a security (whether or not exempted by the provisions of section 77c of this title, other than paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of said section), by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact nec essary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing suoh security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security. (emphasis added) 15 U.S.C. § 771.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiff has charged fraud and conspiracy — charges easy to fling and possessing serious consequences for the accused. Those making such accusations should be prepared to produce evidence as to their validity.” Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F. Supp. 385, 391 (S.D.N.Y.1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is clear that an affidavit made on information and belief cannot support on summary judgment the averments it attempts to uphold.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walpert v. Bart
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.