Securities and Exchange Commission v. United Benefit Life Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 21 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 236 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2019 · most notably Tcherepnin v. Knight (1967), Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. (1969)
87 federal appellate · 21 district · 11 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
reviewedSecurities & Exchange Commission v. United Benefit Life Insurance (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77C (§ 3 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Ruiz v. District of Columbia Court of General Sessions · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance · Helvering v. Le Gierse
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 236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“what character the instrument is given in commerce by the terms of the offer, the plan of distribution, and the economic inducements held out to the prospect.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [T]he assumption of an investment risk cannot by itself create an insurance provision under the federal definition. The basic difference between a contract which to some degree is insured and a contract of insurance must be recognized.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Fjixed annuities! ] offer! ] the annuitant specified and definite amounts beginning with a certain year of his or her life. The standards for investment of funds underlying these annuities have been conservative. The variable annuity introduced two new features. First, premiums collected are invested to a greater degree in common stocks and other equities. Second, benefit payments vary with the success of the investment policy.... The holder of a variable annuity cannot look forward to a fixed monthly or yearly amount in his advancing years. It may be greater or less, depending on the wisdom of the investment policy.... The difficulty is that, absent some guarantee of fixed income, the variable annuity places all the investment risks on the annuitant, none on the company. The holder gets only a pro rata share of what the portfolio of equity interests reflects-which may be a lot, a little, or nothing. ... [W]e conclude that the concept of “insurance” involves some investment risk-taking on the part of the company. The risk of mortality, assumed here, gives these variable annuities an aspect of insurance. Yet it is apparent, not real; superficial, not substantial. In hard reality the issuer of a variable annuity that has no element of a fixed return assumes no true risk in the insurance sense.... For in common understanding “insurance” involves a guarantee that at least some fraction of the benefits will be payable in fixed amounts. The companies that issue these annuities tak”
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.