Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 537 So. 2d 978 - EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Rousseff

537 So. 2d 978 - EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Rousseff’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
4
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 19 Cal. 4th 1036 - Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999), Twiss v. Kury (1994)

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

2201989199020002010decided

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. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933)

Relies on Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean · Rousseff v. Ef Hutton Company Inc & Rousseff

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) Any person purchasing or selling a security in violation of s.517.301, and every director, officer, partner, or agent of or for the purchaser or seller, if the director, officer, partner, or agent has personally participated or aided in making the sale or purchase, shall be jointly and severally liable to the person selling the security to or purchasing the security from such person in an action for rescission ...”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The effect of section 517.211 is similar to that of federal section 12(2), except that whereas 12(2) protects only buyers, section 517.211 protects both buyers and sellers.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The buyer need not show any causal connection between the misrepresentation and his damage; indeed, he need not even show that he has been damaged.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.