Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,209 United States of America v. Robert S. Persky’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.2d 283 · 1975
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tambone (2010), United States v. Newman (1981)
17 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Thornhill v. Alabama · United States v. Harriss · Parker v. Levy
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e find no fatal ambiguity or indefiniteness, such as might prove a pitfall to any person, in the language of the appellants, “attempting to obey the law.’’ No honest and reasonable citizen could have difficulty in understanding the meaning of “untrue,” “material fact,” “any omission to state a material fact,” “in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,” or “misleading.” All these terms, it is true, call for interpretation in accordance to the facts of a given case. So do the terms “malice,” “probable cause,” “self-defense,” “negligence,” “fraud,” “duress,” “justification,” and thousands of other expressions well established in the law. Isolated from their setting, any of the foregoing terms might be said to be “indefinite” or “uncertain”; but, “in the light of the circumstances under which” they are used, their meaning is clear enough to the reasonable and well-intentioned citizen. “That is certain which may be rendered certain.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Perhaps the most interesting [issue] is the apparent dissonance between the general rule that criminal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the accused . and the realization that the civil incarnations of the anti-fraud provisions have, as remedial legislation, been openly and avowedly construed broadly.”
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.