State v. Goetz’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 41 Cal. 3d 714 - People v. Figueroa (1986), State v. Lind (1982)
30 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. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77X (§ 24 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Patterson v. New York · Morrison v. People of State of California · Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. · Caldwell v. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]ny ... arrangement in which persons invest in a common enterprise the returns of which depend to any extent upon inducing other persons to participate or invest in the enterprise, ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A summary of the bill prepared by the Securities Commissioner’s office which explained the amendment to the definition of ‘security’ states that the addition of ‘ “program, contract, or other arrangement in which persons invest in a common enterprise the returns of which depend to any extent upon inducing other persons to participate or invest in the enterprise.” ... is patterned after that used in Senator John Tower’s bill, S.B. 3983, which has been introduced in the U.S. Senate as a stop-gap measure to regulate pyramid sales schemes. The reason for the inclusion of this language in our definition of “security” is to make clear beyond reasonable dispute that an investment in a pyramid promotion is a security, and, as such, subject to the registration and fraudulent practices provisions contained in the Securities Act....’” 312 N.W.2d at 4-5, fn. 1 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a. “Intentionally” if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his purpose to do so. b. “Knowingly” if, when he engages in the conduct, he knows or has a firm belief, unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that he is doing so, whether or not it is his purpose to do so. c. “Recklessly” if he engages in the conduct in conscious and clearly unjustifiable disregard of a substantial likelihood of the existence of the relevant facts or risks, such disregard involving a gross deviation from acceptable standards of conduct, except that, as provided in section 12.1-04-02, awareness of the risk is not required where its absence is due to self-induced intoxication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sweeney v. Sweeney
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.