Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook’s Empirical Analysis
405 F.2d 215 · 1968
Citation profile
140 federal appellate · 26 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 310 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (1977)
140 federal appellate · 26 district · 6 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
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Killian v. United States · Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Pennsylvania v. Nelson · Perry O. Hooper, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Consolidated American Industries, Inc. v. Mountain States Securities Corporation
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 310 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * in other contexts, such as embezzlement and conflict of interest, a majority or even the entire board of directors may be held to have defrauded their corporation”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who — ■ (1) offers or sells a security in violation of section 77e of this title, or (2) offers or sells a security (whether or not exempted by the provisions of section 77c of this title, other than paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of said section), by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact nec essary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing suoh security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security. (emphasis added) 15 U.S.C. § 771.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As to Paribas it appears that the negotiations for the purchase of treasury stock were arm’s length negotiations. There is no reason to believe that Paribas was in possession of any information not available to Banff [whose directors authorized the sale of the stock] and, more importantly, there is no reason to believe that Paribas was in any position to influence the judgment of the Banff directors by any improper means. Paribas and the purchasers whom it represented were, so far as appears, unconnected with Banff and unable through ownership of Banff stock or otherwise to bring any pressure on Banff to sell its stock at a price below its true value. For these reasons the dismissal of the complaint as to Paribas is affirmed.” Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, supra, 405 F.2d at 219 .”
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.