Chapman v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
414 F.2d 153 · 1969
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 526 F. Supp. 736 - Adair v. Hunt International Resources Corp. (1981), Wigand v. Flo-Tek, Inc. (1979)
13 federal appellate · 4 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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · J. Gordon Turnbull, Inc. v. Commissioner · United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corp. · Stadia Oil & Uranium Co. v. Wheelis · Capital Funds, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny security which is a part of an issue offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory, where the issuer of such security is a person resident and doing business within or, if a corporation, incorporated by and doing business within, such State or Territory.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . .in order to qualify for the exemption of § 3(a) (11), the issuer must offer and sell his securities only to persons resident within a single State and the issuer must be a resident of that same State. In addition to this, the issuer must conduct a predominant amount of his business within this same State. This business which the issuer must conduct within the same State refers to the income producing operations of the business in which the issuer is selling the securities . . . .” [Emphasis added]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he purpose of a tender is to put the parties in status quo. The plaintiffs who have already paid for the stock do not have to give up the stock before they sue for the return of the purchase money. Defendants have not indicated any prejudice to them by the form of the tenders. Id. at 274 .”
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.