Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 490 F.2d 810 - Murtagh v. University Computing Co.

Murtagh v. University Computing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

490 F.2d 810 · 1974

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners (1984), Goodman v. Epstein (1978)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

13019741980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Wilko v. Swan · Davis v. Illinois · Maker v. Wisconsin · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,710 Stanley S. Pearlstein v. Scudder & German, a Partnership · Arkansas Public Service Commission v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Settlements of claims arising from acts which are violations of the securities laws are not void as a matter of law, at least where such settlement agreements do not themselves continue the precise conduct which violates the law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp. · Mullen v. New Jersey Steel Corp.
  2. “[t]he existence of an antecedent bona fide dispute between the parties concerning the subject matter of a subsequent settlement agreement is sufficient legal consideration for creation of an enforceable agreement.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Bank One, Texas, N.A. And Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Mbank Houston, N.A., Plaintiffs-Third Party v. Suzan E. Taylor D/B/A Exploration Services, Defendant-Third Party v. Worth Operating, Inc., Third Party · Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Taylor
  3. “Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person to waive compliance with any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder, or of any rule of an exchange required thereby shall be void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Mullen v. New Jersey Steel Corp.

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.