Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,450’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,143 (1979), 467 F. Supp. 227 - In Re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Corp. Securities Litigation (1979)
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, by the use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of any facility of a national securities exchange or otherwise, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or authorization in respect of any security (other than an exempted security) registered pursuant to section 12 of this title. 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Boothe“Actually, the plaintiffs are not complaining about any absence of facts in the proxy statement. Their complaint is that those who prepared the statement did not “disclose” what the plaintiffs say was the true motivation of Old PPD’s management in selling the assets of the company, and did not characterize the bonus aspect of the transaction as plaintiffs would have it characterized. Under the Act and regulations plaintiffs were not entitled to have such a “disclosure” or such a characterization.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the federal purpose is served if the [Proxy] statement fully and fairly sets out such relevant and material facts as would enable a reasonably prudent stockholder to make an intelligent decision as to whether to grant the requested Proxy or as to how he should vote on the questions mentioned in the Proxy statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dixon v. Ladish Co.
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.