Lincoln Commodity Services v. Meade’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 469 · 1977
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2003
9 federal appellate · 1 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 7 U.S.C. § 6B · 7 U.S.C. § 7A
Relies on Cree v. Goldstein · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Colonial Realty Corp. v. Bache & Co. · Bertha Hecht, and v. Harris, Upham & Co., a Partnership, Harris, Upham & Co., Inc., a Corporation, And · Donald W. Buttrey, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Dobich Securities Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court did not commit clear error in finding that through a course of past conduct Meade had granted Lincoln authority to make the challenged trades for his account. Meade testified that Halverson, Lincoln’s agent, had been taking unauthorized positions for Meade’s account since January 1973. Meade had permitted Halverson to continue this practice. He did not make written notice of objection to any of the trades until April 2, 1973, though the Customer’s Agreement specifically required such notice.”
1 later decision 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.