Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,656 Simon v. Haberman v. John D. Murchison’s Empirical Analysis
468 F.2d 1305 · 1972
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1992 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Bloor v. Carro, Spanbock, Londin, Rodman & Fass (1985)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A
Relies on Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Coates v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs · Marietta Norton v. The Discipline Committee of East Tennessee State University
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s reliance on SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir. 1968), (en banc), cert, denied, Coates v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 394 U.S. 976 , 89 S.Ct. 1454 , 22 L.Ed.2d 756 (1969), to support his Rule 10b-5 claim is misplaced. The liability of insiders in that case was firmly predicated on the view that the paramount purpose of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 was to protect purchasers and sellers of securities from those who deal unfairly with them. See 401 F.2d at 847-852. On appeal from the remand in that case, this court upheld the remedy afforded by the District Court, under the terms of which the defendants were required to make restitution of their profits by payments into an escrow fund from which those who were able to demonstrate loss from the defendants’ actions would be compensated. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d 1301 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1005 , 92 S.Ct. 561 , 30 L.Ed.2d 558 (1971). While it is true that we also upheld the provision that the undistributed balance of the fund would, after five years, be distributed to the corporation — in effect, a conditional recovery for the corporation — we did so principally in deference to the District Court’s broad discretion under the Act to fashion a remedy most equitable under the circumstances. In approving that conditional remedy, we recognized, first, the inequity of permitting the defendants to retain the proceeds of their own wrong, and, second, that the corporation may it”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [W]e are aware of no authority for the proposition that an offer to buy shares from a stockholder is either material inside information or a corporate asset. . . .” ( 468 F.2d at 1317 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is illegal to (1) sell a corporate office, or (2) sell management control of the corporation without also selling a controlling block of the voting stock,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Marlin
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.