Bartels v. International Commodities Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Leist v. Simplot (1980), Curran v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1980)
10 federal appellate · 7 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. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 13A · 7 U.S.C. § 13A · 7 U.S.C. § 18 · 7 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. · American Seating Co. v. Zell · Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp. · Dovel v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Provided, That the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements (including any transaction which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an “option”, “privilege”, “indemnity”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, “call”, “advance guaranty”, or “decline guaranty”), and transactions involving contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery, traded or executed on a contract market designated pursuant to section 7 of this title or any other board of trade, exchange, or market, and transactions subject to regulation by the Commission pursuant to section 23 of this title: And provided further, That, except as hereinabove provided, nothing contained in this section shall (i) supersede or limit the jurisdiction at any time conferred on the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulatory authorities under the laws of the United States or of any State, or (ii) restrict the Securities and Exchange Commission and such other authorities from carrying out their duties and responsibilities in accordance with such laws. Nothing in this section shall supersede or limit the jurisdiction conferred on courts of the United States or any State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hatever private right of action might have been available under S.E.C. Rule 10b-5 prior to the Act for a customer injured in a commodity options transaction has now been clearly displaced by the new customer reparations procedure. The implied . . . right of action under Rule 10b-5, though enunciated by the courts rather than by Congress explicitly, is a matter of statutory construction. By enacting the [1974 amendments], Congress has made clear that it does not intend the securities laws to apply to commodities transactions.”
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.