Newman v. Prior’s Empirical Analysis
518 F.2d 97 · 1975
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean (1981), Cook v. Avien, Inc. (1978)
63 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton · Vanderboom v. Sexton
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Any person who— ****** (2) offers or sells a security * * * by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate com merce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or inequity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security or for damages if he no longer owns the security.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]lthough there is authority to the contrary, this circuit is committed to the rule that Sec. 17(a) supports a private damage claim for the fraudulent sale of a security.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reid v. Madison · Newcome v. Esrey
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.