Newman v. Pershing & Co., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 district ·
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. § 78G (§ 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Gooding v. United States · Kelly v. Kosuga · Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co. · Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company · Frost Co v. Coeur D'Alene Mines 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Despite the Draconian language, § 29(b) does not provide a pat legislative formula for solving every case in which a contract and a violation concur. Rather it was a legislative direction to apply common-law principles of illegal bargain, enacted at a time when it seemed much more likely than it might now that courts would fail to do this without explicit legislative instruction. See D.R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-75 , 35 S.Ct. 398 , 59 L.Ed. 520 (1915). There has been a conspicuous lack of judicial enthusiasm for the doctrine thus incorporated when there has been performance by the violat- or; the reasons are clearly set forth in Bruce’s Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co., 330 U.S. 743, 752-757 , 67 S.Ct. 1015 , 91 L.Ed. 1219 (1947), and Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 519-21 , 79 S.Ct. 429 , 3 L.Ed.2d 475 (1959).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[not] every violation [of Reg. T] . . should . . . result in . . . and a private claim for . . . relief.” “These implied causes of action should be read in conjunction with the main purpose of Section 7 which is to protect the national economy, and should not be extended beyond the point where they support such purposes.” Newman v. Pershing, 412 F.Supp. 463, 468, 469 (S.D.N.Y.1975). See also Bell v. J. D. Winer & Co., supra, at 654.”
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.