540 F. Supp. 1054 - Keys v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78N (§ 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80B
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Any person who— ****** (2) offers or sells a security * * * by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate com merce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or inequity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security or for damages if he no longer owns the security.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“By agreeing to petition to annex their land to the water district, plaintiffs made no 'investment' decision because they made no investment. The right to irrigation, not a 'fresh right' but one established by the original investment contract, was to be satisfied at no cost to plaintiffs. They gave no additional consideration .... Viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, there was no more than an inducement to retain an earlier purchased security.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keys v. Wolfe“and nothing in familiar and conceptually related attribution principles such as conspiracy membership, agency, or aider and abettor, demands a visiting of actual liability upon an active wrongdoer as a condition to an attribution of that liability.”
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.