Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,589 Dennis v. Vohs v. Ronald W. Dickson, Elizabeth N. Whitaker, II v. Ronald W. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis
495 F.2d 607 · 1974
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2006 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,351 Billie Jean Woodward v. Metro Bank of Dallas (1975), Dupuy v. Dupuy (1977)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co. · Simon v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · Sargent v. Genesco, 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In [Ute] the Supreme Court stated that “. . . positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery.” However, as we explained in [Simon] this language must be confined to making proof of specific reliance on particular omissions unnecessary when the circumstances indicate that the plaintiff placed some general reliance upon the defendant’s disclosing material information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“With regard to misrepresentations, the question is whether a reasonable investor, in light of the facts existing at the time of the misrepresentation and in the exercise of due care, would have been entitled to rely upon the misrepresentation. .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court rejected this claim, stating: Federal law makes it fraudulent to misrepresent or omit material facts in respect to a sale of securities. * * * * * * The important point ... is that whether or not plaintiffs had to take the stock with non-distributive intent is not a matter of fact — material or otherwise; it is a matter of law. Rule 10b-5 cannot be construed to require a prospective seller of securities to give his prospective buyers legal advice on technical matters arising under the federal securities law. If the buyer is aware of the material facts— [unregistered stock] — he should be as aware of the legal consequences of those facts as his seller. Id. at 625 . (Emphasis supplied)”
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.