Movielab, Inc. v. Berkey Photo, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
452 F.2d 662 · 1971
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,614 the Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Touche Ross & Co. (1976), IIT v. Vencap, Ltd. (1975)
43 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Lehigh Valley Trust Co. v. Central National Bank · 321 F. Supp. 806 - Movielab, Inc. v. Berkey Photo, Inc. · Charlotte Klinger and Eric Klinger v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, and Edward C. Rose
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. there was a note from Gray Line to Morrill. But Krock and Muscat did not ‘sell’ this note to Fifth, nor did Fifth ‘purchase’ it, in any normal sense of those words. The loan went to Gray Line because it was Gray Line which was indebted to Hertz. Gray Line did not have any money. Fifth eventually did. Hence, Krock and Muscat caused Fifth to pay Gray Line’s loan, plus a premium of $107,000 in the bargain. This is overreaching on an individual loan transaction, but it is not fraud in the purchase or sale of securities within the meaning of the two Acts, (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ajppellants strenuously urge that claims of fraud in connection with the issuance of notes in every private loan transaction cannot be within the scope of [the Act], Otherwise, they say, federal jurisdiction could be invoked in connection with the issuance of any check or note no matter how small the transaction so long as some instrumentality of interstate commerce was used. We do not deal with that hypothetical situation, (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“notes issued by one publicly owned company to another publicly owned company for $10,500,000, payable over a period of 20 years, in exchange for the assets of the latter . . . .”
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.