Agran v. Isaacs’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ohio Oil Co. v. United States · United States v. Provident National Bank · 72 F. Supp. 594 - Clark v. United States
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Skolnick papers are totally irrelevant and not pertinent in any way to the above described issue pending before this court in the Agran case. Neither Skol-nick nor Sherman are attorneys, nor do they own any stock in either of the banks involved. Rather, the Skolnick papers set forth libelous accusations and innu-endoes disparaging the character and professional ethics of two judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and a judge of the Appellate Court of Illinois, whom Skol-nick alleges are shareholders of the banks involved in this litigation. None of the judges named by Skolnick are parties to the Agran case, although their interest, if true as alleged, would lie with the plaintiffs. The accusations made by Skolnick have absolutely no bearing on the Agran case. This is but another of a series of brazen and unfounded attempts by Skolnick to cause irreparable damage to the reputation of members of the judiciary and the legal profession. The records of this court alone reveal that since 1962, Skolnick has filed eighteen suits, many of which are against judges and officers of this court, and most of which constituted spurious and vindictive litigation. The record also indicates that any judge ruling against Skolnick is likely to be subjected thereafter to vilification in the news media and often becomes the target of spurious but harassing litigation initiated by Skolnick. * # # J}S !jC $ In neither form nor substance are the Skolnick papers as su”
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.