Occidental Life Insurance Co. of North Carolina v. Pat Ryan & Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “is limited to ascertaining whether the decision amounts to an abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keith A. Johnson v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina · Klein v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

2. “* * * With respect to damages we draw a distinction between cases where, by fraud, one is caused to buy something that one would not have bought or would not have bought at that price, and where, by fraud one is induced to convey property to the fraudulent party. In the former case the damages are to be reckoned solely by “the difference between the real value of the property at the date of its sale to the plaintiffs and the price paid for it, with interest from that date, and, in addition, such outlays as were legitimately attributable to the defendant’s conduct, but not damages covering ‘the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.’ ” [Citations omitted] On the other hand, if the property is not bought from, but sold to the fraudulent party, future accretions not foreseeable at the time of the transfer even on the true facts, and hence speculative, are subject to another factor, viz., that they accrued to the fraudulent party. It may, as in the case at bar, be entirely speculative whether, had plaintiffs not sold, the series of fortunate occurrences would have happened in the same way, and to their same profit. However, there can be no speculation but that the defendant actually made the profit and, once it is found that he acquired the property by fraud, that the profit was the proximate consequence of the fraud, whether foreseeable or not. It is more appropriate to give the defrauded party the benefit even of windfalls than to let the fraudulent party keep them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fox v. Kane-Miller Corp.

3. “Section 29(b) merely makes explicit that which is implicit, i.e., the recognition of the doctrine of illegal bargains in the application of the securities laws. In deciding how to fashion a remedy in the area of illegal bargains, the type and degree of illegality become highly important factors. The violation of the securities laws in this case did not involve a contract that was illegal per se. Nor did it involve a criminal act. Here the illegality involved a matter collateral to the agreement to sell stock, i.e., the misrepresentations and nondisclosures by Occidental. Moreover, [Ryan] has an ample variety of remedies, both legal and equitable, in order to vindicate the wrong done to it and the public in general . . .. [I]t would not advance the purposes of the securities laws to permit [Ryan] to obtain an unexpected windfall”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 159 Wis. 2d 639 - Criticare Systems, Inc. v. Sentek, Inc.