Claude E. Shell v. Milford E. Hensley, Jack E. Love v. Milford E. Hensley’s Empirical Analysis
430 F.2d 819 · 1970
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (1977)
39 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc.
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * When a person who is dealing with a corporation in a securities transaction denies the corporation's directors access to material information known to him, the corporation is disabled from availing itself of an informed judgment on the part of its board regarding the merits of the transaction. In this situation the private right of action recognized under Rule 10b-5 is available as a remedy for the corporate disability. We can make no meaningful distinction between this situation and [one in which] the other party to the securities transaction controls the judgment of all the corporation's board members or conspires with them or the one controlling them to profit mutually at the expense of the corporation, [for] the corporation is no less disabled from availing itself of an informed judgment than if the outsider had simply lied to the board. * * *”
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 made, 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 or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the anthropomorphic concept of the corporationa person capable of injury and knowledge”
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.