Drachman v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.2d 722 · 1971
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green (1977)
71 federal appellate · 13 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. § 19 (§ 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“flexibly, not technically and restrictively,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is “usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities.” We believe that § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders ... to enforce a right of a corporation ..., the corporation ... having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it, the complaint shall be verified and shall allege (1) that the plaintiff was a shareholder ... at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share ... devolved on him by operation of law, and (2) that the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on a court of the United States which it would not otherwise have. The complaint shall also allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders ..., and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.””
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.