State v. Lundberg’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · State v. Grissom · State v. Dunn · State Ex Rel. Mays v. Ridenhour · Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was to place the traffic of promoting and dealing in speculative securities under rigid governmental regulation and control to protect investors and to prevent, to the extent possible, the sale of fraudulent or worthless speculative securities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v.Lundberg“apply to a person that sells or offers to sell a security unless the offer to sell or the sale is made in this state or the offer to purchase or the purchase is made and accepted in this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v.Lundberg“a sale or offer to sell a security originates in Kansas if any portion of the selling process has occurred here or if there is some territorial nexus between the offer and the State of Kansas”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v.Lundberg
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.