Troyer v. Karcagi’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably In Re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co. (1984), 507 F. Supp. 1225 - Savino v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc. (1981)
2 federal appellate · 6 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Jenkins v. McKeithen
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hence, under the Troyers’ alternative theory of fraud in connection with purchases or sales of the underlying securities traded by Karcagi in the discretionary accounts, a Rule 10b-5 cause of action is adequately alleged as to instances of the purchase or sale of securities under circumstances where Karcagi failed to disclose self-interest, but not as to other purchases or sales where Karcagi induced the Troyers to grant him the discretion to make the purchases or sales by generalized representations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The alleged misrepresentations concerning Karcagi’s investment performance and his intentions affected the investors’ confidence in a person selected by them to be their fiduciary rather than influencing their decision to purchase or sell particular securities. The purpose of Rule 10b-5, i. e., to promote “the maintenance of free and open securities markets nurtured in a climate of fair dealing” is not therefore sufficiently served.”
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.