Wolf v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
477 F.2d 467 · 1973
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston (1983)
85 federal appellate · 5 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. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Trustees v. Greenough · Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island v. Wingate Corp.
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prejudgment interest should be awarded on a damage recovery in a [federal securities] action is a question of fairness resting within the District Court's sound discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 726 F. Supp. 1322 - Estate of Pidcock v. Sunnyland America, Inc. · Myles Osterneck, Cross-Appellees v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., E.T. Barwick, M.E. Kellar, Cross-Appellee, Buford Talley, Cross- Ernst & Whinney, Cross-Appellant. Myles Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., Ernest & Whinney, Myles Osterneck, Cross-Appellants v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., Melvin E. Kellar and Buford A. Talley, Cross-Appellees“It cannot be disputed that a board of directors of a corporation is without power to ratify that which it cannot do directly or that which it could not authorize be done initially. It has no power to ratify a void or illegal act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[did] not have standing to seek individual damages for the dilution of equity interest caused by the [stock exchange in question] because plaintiffs were neither purchasers or sellers in connection with that transaction.”
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.