Condec Corp. v. Farley’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Edgar v. Mite Corp. · Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp. · Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. · Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. · Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Care Corp.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this case from Avnet by claiming that the admis sions or disclosures plaintiff requests involve no legal conclusions. We find the distinction unconvincing. Admissions of the magnitude plaintiff requests would lead to the inevitable “legal conclusion” that defendants willfully violated federal securities law ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.