Recaman v. Barish’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1996
2 federal appellate · 1 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. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,657 Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Ltd. v. Robert Maxwell, Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Limited v. Isidore Kerman · Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook · IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jurisdiction to Prescribe With Respect to Effect Within Territory. A state has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct that occurs outside its territory and causes an effect within its territory, if either: (a) the conduct and its effect are generally recognized as constituent elements of a crime or tort under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems, or (b)(i) the conduct and its effect are constituent elements of activity to which the rule applies; (ii) the effect within the territory is substantial; (iii) it occurs as a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct outside the territory; and (iv) the rule is not inconsistent with the principles of justice generally recognized by states that have reasonably developed legal systems.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurisdiction to Prescribe with Respect to Conduct, Thing, Status or Other Interest within Territory. A state has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law: (a) attaching legal consequences to conduct that occurs within its territory, whether or not such consequences are determined by the effects of the conduct outside the territory; and (b) relating to a thing located, or a status or other interest localized in its territory.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e do not doubt that the collapse of IOS after the offering had an unfortunate financial effect in the United States. Nevertheless we conclude that the generalized effects described by Professor Mendelson would not be sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction over a damage suit by a foreigner under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws.”
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.