Davis v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
526 F.2d 1286 · 1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2016
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America · Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though the alleged scheme did not arise until after the contract to sell had been entered, we agree with the District Court that it is still "in connection with the sale.'" Payment has not yet been made pursuant to the contracts and the purpose of the scheme is to reduce the amount of that payment. The alleged scheme sufficiently "touches'" the contracts to sell plaintiff's securities to be "in connection with'" a sale.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is ‘usually associated with the sale and purchase of securities.’ We believe that § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (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 statement made, in 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,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mosher v. Kane
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.