Shelley v. Noffsinger’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2005
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 7 U.S.C. § 18 · 7 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 6B
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Tomera v. Galt
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essence of a churning claim is not a particular transaction, it is the aggregation of transactions, allegedly excessive in number, judged in relation to the plaintiff’s investment objectives and the market conditions at that time____ For this reason, it serves no useful purpose to require the plaintiffs to list with particu larity every transaction relevant to their claim.””
2 later decisions 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.