United States v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2002 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman (1971), Zeller v. Bogue Electric Manufacturing Corp. (1973)
14 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. § 77C (§ 3 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Shillitani v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · Birnbaum v. Newport Steel 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which arises out of a current transaction or the proceeds of which have been or are to be used for current transactions, and which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In today’s complex society it would be unreasonable to require injunctions to be more specific than that utilized here. There are an unlimited number of techniques which can be used to distribute unregistered securities or to make fraudulent representations when selling securities. * * * No injunction could be written anticipating all such techniques, and any injunction which attempted to would be far broader and more harsh on the defendant.”
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.