Strax v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Bosco v. Serhant (1988), Strobl v. New York Mercantile Exchange (1985)
2 federal appellate · 3 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 7 U.S.C. § 1 (CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995) · 7 U.S.C. § 13 · 7 U.S.C. § 13B · 7 U.S.C. § 13C · 7 U.S.C. § 18 · 7 U.S.C. § 19 · 7 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · Application of Fre Le Poole Griffiths for Admission to the Bar · Mid-West Paper Products Company 78-1736 v. Continental Group Inc Shopping Cart Inc 78-1746
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If any person (other than a contract market) is manipulating or attempting to manipulate or has manipulated or attempted to manipulate the market price of any commodity, in interstate commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market, or otherwise is violating or has violated any of the provisions of this chapter or of the rules, regulations, or orders of the [Commodities Futures Trading] Commission thereunder, the Commission may, upon notice and hearing ... make and enter an order directing that such person shall cease and desist therefrom”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]t is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it. ‘When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode.’ ” Transamerica Mortgage Ad-visors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19-20 , 100 S.Ct. 242, 246-47 , 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979); Strax v. Commodity Exchange, Inc., 524 F.Supp. 936, 944 (S.D.N.Y.1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 13(b) provides in relevant part: Any person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or any of the rules, regulations, or orders issued pursuant to this chapter may be held liable for such violation in any action brought by the [Commodities Futures Trading] Commission to the same extent as such controlled person.”
1 later decision 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.