Pinter v. Dahl’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
318 federal appellate · 229 district · 200 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,730 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. (1991)
318 federal appellate · 229 district · 200 state decisions — followed in 28 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77 · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Tcherepnin v. Knight
Cited together with Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson
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 1,730 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The person who gratuitously urges another to make a particular investment decision is not, in any meaningful sense, requesting value in exchange for his suggestion or seeking the value the titleholder will obtain in exchange for the ultimate sale. The language and purpose of § 12(1) suggest that liability extends only to the person who successfully solicits the purchase, motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner. If he had such a motivation, it is fair to say that the buyer “purchased” the security from him....”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“it might expose securities professionals, such as accountants and lawyers, whose involvement is only the performance of their professional services, to Sec. 12(1) strict liability for rescission.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... there is no support in the statutory language or legislative history for expansion of § 12(1) primary liability beyond persons who pass title and persons who “offer,” including those who “solicit” offers ... Congress did not intend that the section impose liability on participants collateral to the offer or sale.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.