Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. ““Except as hereinafter in this Act specifically provided, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the sale of any security when made in any of the following transactions and under any of the following conditions, and the company or person engaged therein shall not be deemed a dealer within the meaning of this Act; that is to say, the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any sale, offer for sale, solicitation, subscription, dealing in or delivery of any security under any of the following transactions or conditions: ****** I. Provided such sale is made without any public solicitation or advertisements, (a) the sale of any security by the issuer thereof so long as the total number of security holders of the issuer thereof does not exceed thirty-five (35) persons after taking such sale into account; (b) the sale of shares of stock pursuant to the grant of any employees’ restricted stock option as defined in the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States; or (c) the sale by an issuer of its securities during the period of twelve (12) months ending with the date of the sale in question to not more than fifteen (15) persons (excluding, in determining such fifteen (15) persons, purchasers of securities in transactions exempt under other provisions of this Section 5, purchasers of securities exempt under Section 6 hereof and purchasers of securities which are part of an offering registered under Section 7 hereof), provided such persons purchased such securities for their o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Koah v. State

2. ““Since the exemption provided in Article 581-5.1(a), supra, is not contained within the body of the definition of the offense (Art. 581-29, supra), the State was not required to negative the exemption as one of its elements of proof. See Bridges v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 508 , 360 S.W.2d 531 , cert, denied, 371 U.S. 821 , 83 S.Ct. 38 , 9 L.Ed.2d 61 ; See Salazar v. State [Tex.Cr.App.], 423 S.W.2d 297 (1968). The burden rested with appellant to raise this exemption defense; then, if raised, the burden shifted to the State to disprove such defense beyond a reasonable doubt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cox v. State

3. ““The term ‘public solicitation’ is not defined in The Texas Securities Act. The term ‘solicitation’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., . . ., as ‘Asking: Enticing: urgent request: Any action which the relation of the parties justifies in construing into a serious request.’ [emphasis original] ‘Public solicitation’ does not mean that the offer must be made to the whole world ... It is considered that a sale of securities is offered to the public when several people are asked if they will not buy and are urged to buy such stock.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Koah v. State