Bills v. Shaw, Hooker & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Royal Air Properties, Inc. v. Smith · Gregory-Massari, Inc. v. Purkitt
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To sanction suits for declaratory relief as within the jurisdiction of the District Courts merely because, as in this case, artful pleading anticipates a defense based on federal law would contravene the whole trend of jurisdictional legislation by Congress, disregard the effective functioning of the federal judicial system and distort the limited procedural purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act.” 339 U.S. at 673-74 , 70 S.Ct. at 880 .”
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.