Assoclated Securities Corporation, a Utah Corporation, and Norman B. Jenson v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Gerald M. Greenberg v. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2005 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), Haltmier v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (1977)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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
Relies on Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Blue Ridge Gas Company, Intervenor. Petition for Review of Order of the Federal Power Commission, No. 14583. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Stadia Oil & Uranium Co. v. Wheelis · O/Y Finlayson-Forssa A/B v. Pan Atlantic Steamship 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the balancing of injury to * * * [the plaintiffs in this case] and of harm to the public by the proscribed activities in securities transactions the necessity of protection to the public far outweighs any personal detriment resulting from the impact of applicable laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The balancing of private detriment against public harm requires the fair and proper exercise by the Commission of its discretionary powers. The evaluation of facts and the exercise of judgment for the protection of investors dealing in over-the-counter securities is a function assigned by Congress to the Commission rather than the courts and the exercise by the Commission of its discretionary powers will not be upset by the courts except for cogent reasons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not of controlling importance as primary consideration must be given to the statutory intent to protect investors.”
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.