Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,150 Oliver R. Grace v. Daniel K. Ludwig’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 1262 · 1973
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 1994 · most notably Silberman v. Bogle (1982), Van Gemert v. Boeing Co. (1978)
16 federal appellate · 1 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. § 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. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Y (§ 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“emphasized that the private enforcement of the Securities laws as a supplement to SEC action, was highly desirable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1) where the obdurate behavior of a party has reflected wilful disobedience of a court order, or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, wantonly or vexatiously, the court may assess attorney’s fees as a punitive measure. * * * “2) when by their own efforts a claimant and his attorneys have created or preserved a common fund or substantial benefit, not necessarily pecuniary, for the members of a particular class, attorney’s fees are deducted from the total recovery in order to distribute fairly the burdens of a successful litigation among those who will reap its rewards. “The equitable basis of this [second] exception is the prevention of unjust enrichment — that is, that the plaintiff, at his own expense, has conferred a benefit upon the class for which justice demands he be recompensed.” 5”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““At the heart of the doctrine favor-. ing the award of counsel fees in securities cases is the need to encourage the vigilance of private attorneys general to provide corporate therapy protecting the .public investor who might otherwise be victimized. See Rosenblatt v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 435 F.2d 1121, 1124 (2d Cir. 1970). Thus in Borak the Court commented upon the practical inability of the SEC to thoroughly and independently examine the veracity of facts set out in proxy materials which, except for private litigant scrutiny, would be undetected until after a merger had been accomplished. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, 377 U.S. 426 at 432-433 , 84 S.Ct. 1555 , 12 L.Ed.2d 423 .””
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.