Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 F.2d 116 - George Garfield v. T. C. Strain and R. E. Maresh

George Garfield v. T. C. Strain and R. E. Maresh’s Empirical Analysis

320 F.2d 116 · 1963

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
4
states following
August 1989
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 1989 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman (1971), Gilbert v. Nixon (1970)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

250196319701980decided

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

Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · Frost Co v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation · Woodward v. Wright · Hoagland v. Murray

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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The number, amount and manner of the offering are, however, distinctly relevant, and the general criterion is whether the particular persons affected stand in need of the protection of the Act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly— (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or- (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. “(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof. “(c) The exemptions provided in section 3 shall not apply to the provisions of this section.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.