30 F. Supp. 466 - Murphy v. Cady’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy (1980), Demarco v. Edens (1968)
44 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Crossman v. Bancon & Robinson Co. · Bryne v. Greene · Richards v. Foss
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for misrepresentations not only upon principals, but also upon brokers when selling securities owned by other persons.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to recover the amount paid for [the security] with interest, less the amount received with interest”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dr. Roger E. Austin, Dr. Tom W. Anderson, Dr. Myrel A. Neumann, and Dr. William C. Randall v. B.J. Loftsgaarden Alotel Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation Property Development and Research Company, a Minnesota Corporation and 2361 Building Corporation, Dr. Roger E. Austin, Dr. Tom W. Anderson, Dr. Myrel A. Neumann, and Dr. William C. Randall v. B.J. Loftsgaarden Alotel Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation, M.S. Noah John W. Burg Lyman H. Coult Robert R. Dunlap, Property Development & Research Company a Minnesota Corporation and 2361 Building Corporation, Dr. Roger E. Austin, Dr. Tom W. Anderson, Dr. Myrel A. Neumann and Dr. William C. Randall v. B.J. Loftsgaarden Alotel Incorporated, a Minnesota Corporation, M.S. Noah John W. Burg Lyman H. Coult Robert R. Dunlap, Property Development & Research Company a Minnesota Corporation and 2361 Building Corporation · Austin v. Bj Loftsgaarden““(1) sells a security in violation of section 77e, or “(2) sells a security * * * by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known of such untruth or omission, shaU be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security.””
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.