Hector v. Wiens’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 429 · 1976
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 104 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Great Western Bank & Trust v. Kotz (1976), Daniel v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1977)
30 federal appellate · 104 district · 5 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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Acosta v. United States · Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises 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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“commit his assets to the enterprise in such a manner as to subject himself to financial loss.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court finds that the Bond is not ambiguous, and that the meaning of subsection 1) can be determined from the face of the Bond. The court finds that subsection 1) covers directors while they are performing functions as directors, in contrast to subsection 2), which covers directors who perform acts normally done by officers or employees. This interpretation gives meaning to both subsections. Fireman’s Fund contends that Court-right made the fraudulent representations on behalf of CCC while acting in the capacity of a borrower from NLPCA and not as a director of NLPCA. IPCA argues that even if Courtright was not acting in his capacity as a director of NLPCA when he made the fraudulent representations, he violated his duty as a director by concealing the false representations and thus committed dishonest or fraudulent acts while employed as a director of NLPCA. The court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether Courtright committed any dishonest or fraudulent acts while acting in his capacity as a director of NLPCA because the record is inconclusive regarding the duties performed by directors of NLPCA, including Courtright, during the relevant time period. In addition, there is evidence that Courtright was a member of a loan committee for NLPCA. There is an issue of fact as to whether Courtright used his position as a member of a loan committee for NLPCA or his status as a director of NLPCA to influence the handling of the loans and extens”
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.