Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Investments, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
440 F.2d 912 · 1971
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2005 · most notably Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991), Arneil v. Ramsey (1977)
27 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · John B. Janigan v. Frederick B. Taylor · Vanderboom v. Sexton · Ellis v. Carter
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [F]or us to change the applicable limitation period because the local law of securities regulation has changed would add an unnecessary uncertainty to the prosecution of federal claims under section 10(b). We do not believe federal policy is advanced by changing the law governing the timeliness of federal claims to correspond with each change in the substantive elements of a claim under the local securities law. Aggrieved persons have come to rely upon our prior holdings. Reasonable stability in laws pertaining to voluntary relationships between parties, and the right of access to the courts to question those relationships, is a worthwhile objective as well. [Footnote omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person may sue under this section more than three years after... any violation of the provisions of... RCW 21.20.010 ... either was discovered by such person or would have been discovered by him or her in the exercise of reasonable care.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the absence of an applicable federal statute of limitation, the question of which local limitations period is appropriate calls for a consideration of the objectives of the substantive federal statute and how they can best be achieved . “[T]here may be quite valid reasons for so limiting [to a period within three years of the contract of sale] claims arising from transactions governed by the local securities laws. However, we think that the objectives of federal policy can best be achieved by applying the general fraud limitations period . . . as we have in the past. “We are aware of no federal appellate decision in which the limitations period governing a section 10(b) action has been held to begin before the plaintiff reasonably could discover the violation of section 10(b) of the Act. In other circuits, where other than a general fraud provision has been chosen, federal law has been held to re quire that the running of the statute be tolled until plaintiffs reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud. We think the . . . limitation applicable in general fraud cases is superior to the local securities act limitation in this regard.” Douglass v. Glenn E. Hinton Investments, Inc., 440 F.2d 912, 915-916 (9th Cir. 1971) (emphasis added) (citations deleted).”
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.