Jackson v. Oppenheim’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 826 · 1976
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy (1992), Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd. (2004)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Vaughan v. Atkinson · Lanza v. Drexel & Co. · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In short, the communication must have been intended or perceived as instrumental in effecting the sale.” Id. (emphasis added). These are two distinct standards.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) • • • (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” Rule 10b-5 provides: “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 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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The situation is entirely different, of course, where liability is based on a misleading prospectus constituting an offer of sale. In such cases liability may be based on the misleading 'offer' by prospectus even though the prospectus is mailed after the confirmation of the sale.”
2 later decisions 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.