Randall v. Loftsgaarden’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
242 federal appellate · 47 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 758 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo (2005), Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991)
242 federal appellate · 47 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAustin v. Loftsgaarden (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 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) · 26 U.S.C. § 465 · 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983) · 26 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah 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 758 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That is to say, what the purchaser is entitled to is `a return of the consideration paid, reduced by the amount realized when he sold the security and by any "income received”
54 later decisions quote this exact passage“to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,005 Don Farley Robert Mendenhall v. William R. Henson, Jr. Paul M. Henson Bowes Lyon Resources Ltd. National Transport Services, Inc., Westark Specialties, Inc., Don Farley Robert Mendenhall v. William R. Henson, Jr., Paul M. Henson, Bowes Lyon Resources Ltd. National Transport Services, Inc. Westark Specialties, Inc. · PPM America, Inc. v. Marriott Corp.“we do not consider whether courts may ever refuse to allow a rescissory recovery under [the statute] where the `premium' for expected tax benefits represented a large portion of the purchase price, in which event the out-of-pocket measure might yield a significantly smaller recovery.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.