407 F. Supp. 279 - Lorber v. Beebe’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy (1980), Barnes
9 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In case any part of the registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring such security ... may ... sue ____ (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any person who... (2) offers or sells a security... by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a[n] . . . oral communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading ... 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 such security from him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a general rule, ... the courts have limited the section [12(2)] to plaintiff’s immediate seller, [citations omitted] However, over the years, exceptions to this strict privity requirement have developed and, in certain carefully defined instances, liability has been extended to more than the plaintiff’s immediate seller. Thus, liability has attached to persons acting as the immediate seller’s agent, to defendants who are alleged to be controlling persons of the immediate sellers, and to those who have actively participated in the sale, either as an aider and abettor or as a eo-conspirator. [citations omitted]”
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.