Teague’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in the ordinary course, a prevailing party is entitled to an award of costs,”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joe Miller, IV Robert W. Pearce, Jr. v. Asensio & Company, Incorporated, and Manuel P. Asensio Asensio Capital Management Incorporated John Does 1-20, Joe Miller, IV Robert W. Pearce, Jr. v. Asensio & Company, Incorporated, and Manuel P. Asensio Asensio Capital Management Incorporated John Does 1-20 · 519 F. Supp. 2d 598 - Phillips v. Morbark, Inc.

2. “It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly: (1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (2) To 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 are made, not misleading or, (3) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 186 F. Supp. 2d 279 - In Re CINAR Corp. Securities Litigation · 186 F. Supp. 2d 279 - Kelley v. Cinar Corp.

3. “The Supreme Court considered Howey’s third prong in the context of an offering of interests in real estate in United Housing Foundation v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 , 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975). There the Court was faced with the question of “whether shares of stock entitling a purchaser to lease an apartment in ... a state subsidized and supervised nonprofit housing cooperative ... are ‘securities’.” Id. at 840 , 95 S.Ct. at 2054 . The Court answered this question in the negative, explaining: The touchstone [of the Howey test] is the presence of an investment in a common venture premised on a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. By profits, the Court has meant either capital appreciation resulting from the development of the initial investment ... or a participation in earnings resulting from the use of investors’ funds.... In such cases the investor is “attracted solely by the prospects of a return” on his investment. Howey, supra, [328 U.S.] at 300 [ 66 S.Ct. at 1103 ]. By contrast, when a purchaser is motivated by a desire to use or consume the item purchased — “to occupy the land or to develop it themselves,” as the Howey Court put it, ibid. — the securities laws do not apply. Id., 421 U.S. at 852-53 , 95 S.Ct. at 2060-61 (citations and footnotes omitted) ... Forman , we think, makes clear that, for Howey’s third prong to be satisfied, it must be shown (1) that the opportunity provided to offerees”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Atlantic Littleneck Clamfarms, Inc.