Sohns v. Dahl’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc. (1997), 98 Ill. 2d 338 - Torres v. Walsh (1983)
8 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Norwood v. Kirkpatrick · Rodriquez v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Defendants] confuse the requirements of the 1933 Act’s registration provisions with the anti-fraud provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts. The registration provisions are designed to assure that investors will be furnished with all material information concerning an informed investment decision. * * * In contra-distinction, the anti-fraud provisions do not establish an affirmative disclosure system requiring the filing of documents. Rather the anti-fraud provisions are essentially a generalized self-executing prohibition against fraudulent activity. * * The fact that the SEC has historically advocated a hands-off approach to the regulation of pension plans with respect to disclosure requirements holds no brief for exempting pension plans from the anti-fraud provisions of the securities acts. * * * Although banks and life insurance companies are subject to stringent regulation, bank securities and insurance variable annuities and flexible funds are subject to the anti-fraud rules of the securities acts, even though they are sometimes exempt from the registration regulations of the acts [footnotes and citations omitted].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“judicial economy and convenience of the parties is best facilitated by a consideration of all legal theories arising from a single set of operative facts____ Once that set of facts and defendants are legitimately before th[e] court ... little would be gained by not requiring a defendant to defend against a certain type of theory superimposed upon those facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All that is required is but one act within the forum district which represents more than an immaterial part of the allegedly illegal events.”
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.