Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 F.2d 792 - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,714 Edwin J. Herpich v. Robert H. Wallace, Jack E. Love

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,714 Edwin J. Herpich v. Robert H. Wallace, Jack E. Love’s Empirical Analysis

430 F.2d 792 · 1970

Citation profile

275
cited by 275 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

156 federal appellate · 17 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 275 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Williamson v. Tucker (1981)

156 federal appellate · 17 district · 3 state decisions

164019701980199020002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen

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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “They are ... designed to encompass the infinite variety of devices that are alien to the”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not proscribe all fraudulent schemes concocted to take undue advantage of investors, but only those fraudulent schemes that are employed in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “misleading or deceptive activities, whether or not they are precisely and technically sufficient to sustain a common law action....”
    4 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.