General Protective Committee for the Holders of Option Warrants of the United Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably General Protective Committee v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1954), Nader v. Volpe (1972)
15 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedDowning v. Securities & Exchange Commission (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 79 (Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935)
Relies on Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · American Power & Light Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · General Protective Committee v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Central-Illinois Securities Corporation Streeter
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) It shall be the duty of the Commission, as soon as practicable * * *: "(1) To require by order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that each registered holding company, and each subsidiary company thereof, shall take such action as the Commission shall find necessary to limit the operations of the holding-company system of which such company is a part to a single integrated public-utility system, and to such other businesses as are reasonably incidental, or economically necessary or appropriate to the operations of such integrated public-utility system * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * that Committee counsel are entitled to modest compensation for their services in the initial hearings on the Plan before us, despite their lack of success, under the normal principles applicable to class representation in proceedings before us * * *. However for their services in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia subsequent to our order approving the Plan and in petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari with respect to the merits, * * * the firm is entitled to compensation on a more reduced basis, and for the services in raising the jurisdictional point in the Supreme Court and for the services subsequent to the granting of the petition for certio-rari * * * the United estate should not be required to pay any compensation.” 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re United Corp.
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.