Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 457 F.2d 274 - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,355 Ella Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and David S. Nelson

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,355 Ella Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and David S. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

457 F.2d 274 · 1972

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2006 · most notably Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran (1982), Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth (1985)

45 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions

5201972198019902000decided

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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 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)

Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Culpepper

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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[j]udicial analyses of the question whether particular investment contracts are `securities' within the statutory definition have repeatedly stressed the significance of finding a common enterprise." Id. at 276 . * * * * * * "We find the element of commonality absent here. Although the complaint does allege that Nelson entered into similar arrangements with other customers, the success or failure of those other contracts had no direct impact on the profitability of plaintiffs' contract. Nelson's various customers were represented by a common agent, but they were not joint participants in the same investment enterprise." Id. at 276-77 . * * * * * * "We do not believe an investor who grants discretionary authority to his broker thereby joins the broker's other customers in the kind of common enterprise that would convert the agency relationship into a statutory security." Id. at 279 .”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"`In essence, this contract creates an agency-for-hire rather than constituting the sale of a unit of a larger enterprise. No matter how many different persons Nelson became an agent for under similar or even identical discretionary contracts, his relationship with each would remain as that of agent and principal. Each contract creating this relationship is unitary in nature and each will be a success or failure without regard to the others. Some may show a profit, some a loss, but they are independent of each other.'" Milnarik at 277 quoting Milnarik v. M-S Commodities, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 1149, 1151 (N.D.Ill. 1970).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The term 'security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security', or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing.”
    2 later decisions 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.