Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.2d 872 - Baum v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc.

Baum v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.2d 872 · 1969

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
3
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 133 Ill. 2d 374 - Laughlin v. Evanston Hospital (1990), Ambook Enterprises v. Time Inc. (1979)

21 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

250196919701980199020002010decided

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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Davis v. Balkcom, Warden · Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. United Press International, Inc. · Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. · United States v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc.

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.

  1. ““It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly . . ..” [Emphasis added]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . no principal underwriter of such security and no dealer shall sell any such security to any person except a dealer, a principal underwriter, or the issuer, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A mutual fund share represents a fractional ownership in a large investment account. It is, in essence, a service contract between the investor and the investment company whereby the investor places his money in the hands of the investment company in expectation of realizing a financial gain.””
    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.