Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 F.2d 270 - Ellis v. Carter

Ellis v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

291 F.2d 270 · 1961

Citation profile

187
cited by 187 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

111 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 187 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston (1983), Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. (1969)

111 federal appellate · 12 district · 8 state decisions

940196119701980199020002010decided

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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Hurn v. Oursler · Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co. · Fratt v. Robinson

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

  1. “* * * any manipulative device or contrivance * *.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “this construction is saying in effect that the procedural restrictions which Congress carefully provided in the 1933 act with regard to a buyer's civil remedy were completely nullified or ignored by Congress a year later in giving buyers an unrestricted civil remedy.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction vests because of allegations of wrongdoing under Rule X-10B-5 of the General Rules and Regulations of tlie Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to and under the authority granted in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j, 48 Stat. 891 . Jurisdiction is also conferred under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77v, 48 Stat. 86 . As to the allegations of breach of contract and injury to the corporation, the plaintiff says that those claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts and the Court has pendant [sic] jurisdiction.””
    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.