Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 F.2d 311 - Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,485 Independent Investor Protective League v. Securities and Exchanbe Commisision and Pan Australian Fund, Ltd., Independent Investor Protective League v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (Two Cases)

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,485 Independent Investor Protective League v. Securities and Exchanbe Commisision and Pan Australian Fund, Ltd., Independent Investor Protective League v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (Two Cases)’s Empirical Analysis

495 F.2d 311 · 1974

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2023

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80197419801990200020102020decided

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 Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Sierra Club v. Morton · United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) · Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Early

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

  1. “it is quite conceivable that, in the future,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress intended to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme to correct and prevent certain abusive practices in the management of investment companies for the protection of persons who put up money to be invested by such companies on their behalf.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(t)his argument is incorrect in assuming that participation in the administrative proceeding before the SEC as an 'interested person,' 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-39(a), 80a-39(c), automatically makes one an 'aggrieved person' for purposes of judicial review.”
    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.