Bertha Hecht, and v. Harris, Upham & Co., a Partnership, Harris, Upham & Co., Inc., a Corporation, And’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 1202 · 1970
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 21 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2009 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran (1982)
93 federal appellate · 21 district · 8 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
Relies on J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Desist v. United States · Costello v. United States · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp.
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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or Instruments of transportation or communication in Interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly — (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or- (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements madeu in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage In any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates orwould operate as a fraud or deceit, upon the purchaser.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘the controlling person “ * * * must have acted in bad faith and directly or indirectly induced the conduct constituting a violation or cause of action.” ’ Hecht v. Harris, Upham and Co., 430 F.2d 1202, 1210 (9 Cir. 1970) quoting Kamen v. Paul H. Aschkar and Company, 382 F.2d 689, 697 (9 Cir. 1967) cert. denied 393 U.S. 801 , 89 S.Ct. 40 , 21 L.Ed.2d 85 .” Strong v. France, 474 F.2d 747, 752 (9 Cir. 1973).”
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.