Pappas v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.2d 865 · 1968
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1988 · most notably Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (1977), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968)
39 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp. · S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America · Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp. · Vine v. Beneficial Finance Co. · A. T. Brod & Co. v. Jack Perlow and Adele Perlow, Also Known as Adele Wagner
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“act, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is fairly found by viewing this fraud as though the 'independent' stockholders were standing in the place of the defrauded corporate entity . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Have the interested directors shown, by clear and convincing proof, that the transaction complained of was honest, fair and reasonable? (2) Was there a direct violation of Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p.(b) and its implementing Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. 240-1Ob-5)? (3) Did the Board of Directors cause their corporation to sell its stock to them and others at a fraudulently low price? (4) If the “independent” stockholders were considered as standing in the place of the defrauded corporate entity at the time of the original resolution authorizing the stock sales was passed, was there such deception in the resolution as to bring it within the proscription of the Rule? (5) Had Hydromaties standing, albeit derivately, to maintain this action under Rule 10b-5 in the circumstances of this case? (6) What was the fair value, on the respective dates of sale, of the shares involved in the criticized transactions ? (7) What misrepresentations of fact appear in the minutes of the directors meeting of December 21 authorizing the sale of the shares and in the proxy material issued to obtain stockholder ratification?”
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.