Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 F.2d 362 - Vanderboom v. Sexton

Vanderboom v. Sexton’s Empirical Analysis

460 F.2d 362 · 1972

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2017

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

9019721980199020002010decided

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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Vanderboom v. Sexton · The City National Bank Of Fort Smith, Arkansas v. Ilo Vanderboom · William J. Schneider v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Corporation, and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, a Corporation, William J. Schneider v. Chrysler Corporation, a Corporation · Hawkins v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · City National Bank of Fort Smith, Arkansas v. Vanderboom

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

  1. ““1. The court properly determined that the individual investors (all plaintiffs except ITC) should be dismissed as plaintiffs and such determination by the trial court is affirmed. “2. The judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim based upon the Federal Securities Act as barred by the statute of limitations is affirmed. “3. The dismissal of the common law fraud action as against Telecom Corporation and Diamond ‘G’ Ranch, Inc., on the basis of their motions for directed verdict is affirmed. “4. The judgment dismissing the common law fraud claim of ITC as to the defendants Sexton, Hall and Gatlin is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the common law fraud issue as to the defendants Sexton, Hall and Gatlin.””
    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.