Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 F.2d 1224 - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,475 Mary F. El Khadem v. Equity Securities Corporation, a Corporation

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,475 Mary F. El Khadem v. Equity Securities Corporation, a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

494 F.2d 1224 · 1974

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
December 2003
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2003 · most notably United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman (1975), Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,351 Billie Jean Woodward v. Metro Bank of Dallas (1975)

30 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

2701974198019902000decided

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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Anderson v. Alabama · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises Inc.

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

  1. “It is true that unlike the situation in Howey, the financial gain for [the plaintiff] did not vary from year to year depending on the skill with which [the defendant] managed her collateral. Rather, only the risk of loss varied with [the defendant’s] management skills. But this distinction between [the defendant’s] plan and the Howey plan is without significance when determining whether the plan is a security. The distinction is precisely that between a common stock and a corporate bond, yet a corporate bond is not for that reason excluded from the definition of a security. Therefore, the fact that [the plaintiff’s] "profit” was constant while her risk of loss depended on [the defendant’s] management skills does not remove the plan from the definition of a security.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When used in this title, unless the context otherwise requires (10) The term 'security' means any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit, for a security, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a 'security'; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the case involved a security was itself a federal question,”
    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.