North American Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

183 federal appellate · 10 district · 39 state decisions

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

1. ““This broad commerce clause does not operate so as to render the nation powerless to defend itself against economic forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive of the national economy. ****** “Congress in § 11(b)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act was concerned with the economic evils resulting from uncoordinated and unintegrated public utility holding company systems. These evils were found to be polluting the channels of interstate commerce and to take the form of transactions occurring in and concerning more states than one. Congress also found that the national welfare was thereby harmed, as well as the interests of investors and consumers. These evils, moreover, were traceable in large part to the nature and extent of the securities owned by the holding companies. Congress therefore had power under the commerce clause to attempt to remove those evils by ordering the holding companies to divest themselves of the securities that made such evils possible.””

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National League of Cities v. Usery · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.

2. “dominant characteristic of a holding company is the ownership of securities by which it is possible to control or substantially to influence the policies and management of one or more operating companies in a particular field of enterprise.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Union Pacific Corp. v. United States · 141 Wash. 2d 139 - Simpson Inv. Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue

3. ““[T]here is no basis here for assuming that in limiting the scope of North American’s operations there will be dispositions of securities for inadequate considerations, thereby raising a question as to whether there is a destruction of these values without just compensation. The Act does not contemplate or require the dumping or forced liquidation of securities on the market for cash. Under §§ 11(d) and 11(e) of the Act, any divestment or reorganization plan must meet the standards of fairness and equitableness. In many instances this may involve no more than a distribution of the securities among the existing shareholders of the holding company. But should securities be sold for cash, speculation as to unfavorable market conditions cannot undermine the validity of § 11(b) (1). Any plan of divestment or reorganization, moreover, must be carefully scrutinized by both the Commission and the enforcing court, thus enabling the assertion and protection of all shareholders’ rights. See Otis & Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 323 U.S. 624 [ 65 S.Ct. 483 , 89 L.Ed. 511 ]. And there are provisions in the Act guarding against unduly rapid divestment or liquidation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Natural Gas Co. v. United States · 248 F. Supp. 449 - United Gas Corporation v. Pennzoil Company