Husted v. Amrep Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Aldrich v. McCulloch Properties, Inc. (1980), Bomba v. W. L. Belvidere, Inc. (1978)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 1701 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 1703 · 15 U.S.C. § 1704 · 15 U.S.C. § 1705 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 1706 · 15 U.S.C. § 1707 · 15 U.S.C. § 1711 · 15 U.S.C. § 1716 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Segal v. Gordon · Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Where any part of the statement of record, when such part became effective, contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein, any person acquiring a lot in the subdivision covered by such statement of record from the developer or his agent during such period the statement remained uncorrected (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition he knew of such untruth or omission) may, either at law or in equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue the developer. (b) Any developer or agent, who sells or leases a lot in a subdivision' — - (1) in violation of section 1703 of this title, or (2) by means of a property report which contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein, may be sued by the purchaser of such lot.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But by virtue of its position in an independent sentence at the end of the paragraph, the three-year limitations period must have been intended to have application to all of the claims (and their shorter limitations period) set forth in the preceding sentence. Thus, the statute clearly contemplates that some actions under Section 1709(b)(1) [Section 1703] may be brought more than two years after the “violation” so long as they are within three years of the sale.” 429 F.Supp. at 306 . (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“misrepresentations or fraudulent or deceitful behavior occurring after a conditional land sales contract is signed, for the purpose of inducing continued payment by the buyer to the seller, may be actionable violations of § 1703(a)(2) so long as suit is brought within two years of the conduct complained of and within three years of the “sale” or initial signing of the contract.”
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.