Kelley v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably United States v. Brien (1980), Leist v. Simplot (1980)
14 federal appellate · 6 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. § 77T (§ 20 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 6C
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. · Scalza v. United States · State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, enter into, or confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any commodity, which is or may be used for (1) hedging any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity or the products or byproducts thereof, or (2) determining the price basis of any such transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or (3) delivering any such commodity sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment thereof— (A) if such transaction is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, a “wash sale,” “cross trade,” or “accommodation trade,” or is a fictitious sale; (B) if such transaction involves any commodity specifically set forth in section 2 of this title, prior to the enactment of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, and if such transaction is of the character of, or is commonly known to the traders, an “option”, “privilege”, “indemnity”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, “call” “advance guaranty”, or “decline guaranty”, or (C) if such transaction is used to cause any price to be reported, registered, or recorded which is not a true and bona fide price. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the exchange of futures in connection with cash commodity transactions or of futures for cash commodities, or of transfer trades or office trades if made in accordance with board of trade rules applying to such transactions and such rules shall have been approved by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The potential for abuse in the field of option trading created a great deal of pressure for legislation outlawing fraudulent dealings in commodity options. The Commodity Exchange Act, passed in 1936, banned option trading in all domestic commodities within its scope [“old” commodities]. International commodities [“new” commodities] were not covered, however. In 1974 Congress responded by passing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act, which created the C.F. T.C. as an independent regulatory body paralleling the Securities and Exchange Commission and broadened the coverage of the 1936 Act. The 1974 Act amended Section 6c(b) to provide that the C.F.T.C. should have broad authority to regulate, through its rule-making powers, commodity options transactions. Pursuant thereto, the C.F.T.C. adopted Rule 32.9 ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Myron v. Hauser“It is evident that options are attractive to sellers in that capital requirements are minimal, and to buyers because costs are usually somewhat lower than purchasing a futures contract outright since the premium and initial broker’s fees should run less than the margin requirements of the underlying contract, and investors can limit their potential losses. Owing to the ease of market entry, however, fly-by-night organizations are often attracted. The potential for abuse in the field of option trading created a great deal of pressure for legislation outlawing fraudulent dealings in commodity options.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.