Lohf v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.2d 618 · 1972
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1994 · most notably Continental Title Co. v. District Court in & for the City & County of Denver (1982), Patagonia Corporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1975)
15 federal appellate · 2 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. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78E (§ 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Cox v. Hart · Benjamin v. Hunter · Lohf v. Casey · City Nat. Bank, Lawton v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a statute is not rendered retroactive merely because the facts or requisites upon which its subsequent action depends are drawn from a time antecedent to the enactment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, it is apparent that plaintiff was not conducting its business as a broker or dealer at the effective date of the Act. The business was in the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and the day to day decisions were being made by the trustee. We cannot consider plaintiff then to be a ‘broker or dealer,’ whether registered or not, as contemplated by the Act. It makes no difference for these purposes that plaintiff’s registration had not been officially terminated, and thus the automatic membership in the [SIPC] may have continued in form. [ 466 F.2d at 620 ] [emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We must take this to mean firms or persons which were actually in business in the usual sense at the critical date were the ‘brokers or dealers’ referred to. Congress was willing to extend coverage to then financially weak institutions and those of unknown strength, but the line was drawn to exclude those which had failed and were thus in fact not brokers or dealers. [ 466 F.2d at 621 ] [emphasis added]”
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.