Stevens v. Vowell’s Empirical Analysis
343 F.2d 374 · 1965
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently November 1997 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968), Lanza v. Drexel & Co. (1973)
64 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Killian v. United States · Perry O. Hooper, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Consolidated American Industries, Inc. v. Mountain States Securities Corporation · Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co. · Kohler v. Kohler Co. · Ellis v. Carter
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is not necessary to allege or prove common law fraud to make out a case under the statute and rule. It is only necessary to prove one of the prohibited actions such as the material misstatement of fact or the omission to state a material fact.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit 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 engage in any act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. The validity of this rule has been upheld as a lawful exercise of the Commission's power. Hooper v. Mountain States Securities Corporation, 5th Cir., 282 F.2d 195 , cert. denied, 365 U.S. 814, [81 S.Ct. 695, 5 L.Ed.2d 693]. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is unlawful for an insider, such as a majority stockholder, to purchase the stock of minority stockholders without disclosing material facts affecting the value of the stock, known to the majority stockholder by virtue of his inside position but not known to the selling minority stockholders; which information would have affected the judgment of the sellers. The duty of disclosure stems from the necessity of preventing a corporate insider from utilizing his position to take unfair advantage of the uninformed minority stockholders. It is an attempt to provide some degree of equalization of bargaining position in order that the minority may exercise an informed judgment in any such transaction. Some courts have called this a fiduciary duty while others state it is a duty imposed by the “special circumstances.” One of the primary purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78a et seq., was to outlaw the use of inside information by corporate officers and principal stockholders for their own financial advan tage to the detriment of uninformed public security holders.”
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.