National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
420 F.2d 83 · 1969
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007 · most notably Investment Company Institute v. Camp (1971), Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. John H. Shaffer, Administrator (Acting) of the Federal Aviation Administration (1970)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Flast v. Cohen · Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station · Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Brady v. United States · Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
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.
“Appellees also assert that § 702(a) (Supp. II, 1967), embodies an independent and self-sufficient statutory basis for standing. I do not feel that the APA was meant to arrest the development of the law of standing as of the date of its passage: 45 `[W]e would certainly be prepared to hold in an appropriate case that one who complains of administrative action may find a remedy under the Act beyond the strict scope of judicial review recognized prior to its adoption * * *.' 46 "Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. McKay, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 282, 225 F.2d 924 , 933, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 884, 76 S.Ct. 137, 100 L.Ed. 780 (1955). Nevertheless, although the review provisions of the APA were not meant to retard the judicial development and adaptation of the law of standing, it does not establish an independent right to review absent judicially articulated notions of `legal wrong' of `adversely affected or aggrieved * * * within the meaning of any relevant statute.' See Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Dillon, supra note 2 [118 U.S.App.D.C. 257, 335 F.2d 292 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has exercised this authority to exempt persons not within the intent of the [ICA] and generally to adjust its provisions to take account of special situations not foreseen when the [ICA] was drafted.”
2 later decisions 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.