Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 F.2d 1129 - United States v. Speidel

United States v. Speidel’s Empirical Analysis

562 F.2d 1129 · 1977

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Johnson (1983), United States v. Bradford S. Taylor, United States of America v. Vincent Carmen Pinto (1986)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

15019771980199020002010decided

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) · 18 U.S.C. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on United States v. Bass · United States v. Turley · Huddleston v. United States · Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club · Helvering v. Morgan's, 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, warrant, or right to subscribe to or purchase any of the foregoing, or any forged, counterfeited, or spurious representation of any of the foregoing.... As discussed later in this opinion, this Sec. 2311 definition of”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. By contrast, the same section defines some other types of property with the word means. Using the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, it is apparent that the definition of securities is intended to be expansive. The legislative history of this statute reinforces this construction. During the course of enactment, the wording of the bill's definition of securities was changed from”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “to consider the purpose of the act under review and to ascribe a meaning to its words consistent with the context in which they appear.”
    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.