302 F. Supp. 439 - Moerman v. Zipco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably Lanza v. Drexel & Co. (1973), Cook v. Avien, Inc. (1978)
21 federal appellate · 7 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1739
Relies on Desist v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · Stevens v. Marks · Myzel v. Fields · List v. Fashion Park, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The conclusion is inescapable that persons who act as directors are in control of the corporation. This is especially true in light of the liberal construction of this section as including ‘indirect means of discipline or influence short of actual direction.’ Myzel v. Fields, 386 F.2d 718, 738 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 951 , 88 S.Ct. 1043 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1143 (1968).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nothing persuades this court that Connecticut or the drafters of the Uniform Laws intended to do away with the common law rule that ignorance of the law is no defense. The Connecticut statute provides only that ignorance of the applicable facts, after the exercise of reasonable care, is a defense. There is no suggestion that defendant’s knowledge of the law is a necessary element of a cause of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arnold v. Dirrim
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.