Elmer E. Mills and Louis Susman, and v. The Electric Autolite Company Mergenthaler Linotype Company American Mfg. Co., Inc., And’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.2d 429 · 1968
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1982 · most notably Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. (1970), Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. (1977)
30 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80B · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. · 262 F. Supp. 538 - Richland v. Crandall · Union Pacific Railroad v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) No solicitation subject to this regulation shall be made by means of any proxy statement, notice of meetings or other communication, written or oral, containing any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading or necessary to correct any statement in any earlier communication with respect to the solicitation of a proxy for the same meeting or subject matter which has become false or misleading.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We disagree. Just as defendants could have waited until final judgment and then have attacked on appeal all intermediate orders which involve the merits and necessarily affect the final judgment, so now, upon appeal from the interlocutory judgment they may have review of all prior orders which bear the same relationship to the interlocutory judgment.” Id. at 432 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he board was not free to state its recommendation and opinion favoring the merger without giving similar emphasis to the relationship between the directors and the other party to the bargain. 415 F.2d at 1330 and 403 F.2d at 434 .”
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.