Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.2d 1351 - Clegg v. Conk

Clegg v. Conk’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.2d 1351 · 1974

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1995
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1995 · most notably Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (1976), Zimmerman v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rapid City, S.D. (1988)

30 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions

310197419801990decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Wilko v. Swan · Hormel v. Helvering · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Coates v. Securities & Exchange 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““From their common principles and applications may be deduced the propositions that there is required something additional by way of scienter or conscious fault than mere negligence, and something more by way of reliance or causation in fact than some abstract wrong expending its force entirely upon itself.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “heavy burden of demonstrating fundamental injustice”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “must be interpreted flexibly and progressively, not technically nor grudgingly, to fairly effectuate their remedial purpose.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.