Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 FSUPP 1006 - Walpert v. Bart

Walpert v. Bart’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 1992

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

901967197019801990decided

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. § 781 · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Radio City Music Hall Corp. v. United States · Royal Air Properties, Inc. v. Smith

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The same basic principles that apply generally to all actions * * * rule the grant or denial of summary judgment in the private * * * type of action [under the Securities Acts]. Only a word need be added. When there is no genuine issue of material fact underlying liability, an interlocutory summary judgment as to liability may be rendered although there is a genuine factual issue as to the amount of damages that necessitates an appropriate trial of damages. [6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.) Section 56.17 [54], Page 2667 under the heading: “Securities Act; Securities Exchange Act.”]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a party presents evidence on which, taken by itself, it would be entitled to a directed verdict if believed, and which the opposite party does not discredit as dishonest, it rests upon that party at least to specify some opposing evidence which it can adduce and which will change the result.”
    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.