Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 349 SO2D 67 - Manson v. State

Manson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 358 So. 2d 782 - Van Antwerp v. State (1978), Barbee v. State (1981)

25 state decisions

15019771980199020002010decided

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. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on United States v. Cruikshank · Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co. · Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. · United States v. Simmons · Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. Weldon

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

  1. “(i)t is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or *Page 786 indirectly”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"(We hold that henceforth a failure by the defendant in a criminal case to raise proper objection to the composition of a grand or petit jury, including, but not limited to, the constitutional ground of the jury selection process, before entering upon the trial of the case on its merits, constitutes a waiver of his right to do so, subject, of course, to the recognized exceptions of fraud and as to matters which were not known, or by the exercise of due diligence, could not have been known, before trial." Williams v. State , Ala., 342 So.2d 1328 at 1330 (1977).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The quoted provision of the statute is in all respects, other than in the insertion of the word `offer' and that which is necessary to a delineation between the area of sovereignty of Alabama and that of the United States, identical with the language of Rule 10b-5 [ 17 C.F.R. § 240 . 10b-5] of the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to its authority under the Securities Act of 1933 ( 15 U.S.C. § 77a , et. seq.) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. § 78a , et. seq.)."”
    2 later decisions 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.