McLean v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co. (1978), Sundstrand Corp. v. Sun Chemical Corp. (1977)
16 federal appellate · 9 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase sale of any security.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(t)here is no indication that Congress intended anyone to be made liable for such practices unless he acted other than in good faith. The catchall provision of § 10(b) should be interpreted no more broadly.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“However, in total and reckless disregard of the facts that he had never had any prior contact with, or knowledge of Southern Laser, that the telegram was a non sequitur in relation to the confirmations and that he had no way of knowing who sent it, Schiavi never bothered to contact Methvin.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McLean v. Alexander
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.