Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 689 · 1994
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 41 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. (2009), United States v. Philip Morris Inc. (2000)
43 federal appellate · 41 district · 9 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. § 78G (§ 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Q (§ 17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 371
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · United States v. Halper · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Shugrue
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'merely places that party in the lawfully protected financial status quo that he enjoyed prior to launching his illegal scheme.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court ordered Bilzerian to give up only his ill-gotten gains; it did not subject him to an additional penalty. Therefore the disgorgement does not constitute punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Accordingly, we conclude that the disgorgement order is remedial in nature and does not constitute punishment within the meaning of double jeopardy.”
2 later decisions 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.