Andrews v. Blue’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 367 · 1973
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy (1980), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. (1974)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 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)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Ralston Purina Co. · Eaton v. Hobson · Esplin v. Hirschi
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 2(11) of the 1933 Act provides that an issuer includes any person directly or indirectly controlling the issuer. Here defendants controlled the issuer Colorado and Western. As a legal consequence they were issuers. But they were also “underwriters.” The shares distributed to plaintiff were first issued to the [defendants], who in name at least were the sole shareholder of Cherry Creek Drive, Inc. Under Section 2(11) of the 1933 Act they were underwriters because they received Colorado and Western shares for distribution____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leiter v. Kuntz“But the real estate had been sold to a bona fide purchaser; hence the next best solution was to give plaintiff the proceeds. Plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his interest at the time of the unlawful merger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holdsworth v. Strong“embodies a flexible rather than a static principle.”
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.