Goodman v. Epstein’s Empirical Analysis
582 F.2d 388 · 1978
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy (1980), Mansbach v. Prescott, Ball & Turben (1979)
48 federal appellate · 10 district · 6 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 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Wilko v. Swan
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The seller-defendants were required ... to perform certain management functions which were the primary determinants of the value of the securities sold. Most of these management functions were to be performed after the execution of the Limited Partnership Agreement and the contributions of capital (though they could have been expressly lumped into one up-front payment) were spaced out, “from time-to-time,” over the course of the management’s performance. The parties clearly envisioned an on-going relationship under the Agreement with the management making all of the decisions affecting the basic value of the enterprise and its changes of progressing toward its advertised goal. Because of this ongoing relationship and the fact that the entire $3,000,000 for Phase I was not collected “up front” but was to be contributed “from time-to-time” as Phase I progressed toward completion, the purchasers were left with the possibility' of an investment decision each time a call was made.... Had the purchasers agreed to pay the entire three million dollars in one shot, perhaps they would have insisted upon a different type of agreement, providing more affirmative accountability by the General Partners, or would have taken a more active role in policing the disclosures of the General Partners.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The parties clearly envisioned an ongoing relationship under the Agreement with the management making all of the decisions affecting the basic value of the enterprise and its chances of progressing toward its advertised goal____ Whether the facts were such that any remedy to alter the plaintiffs’ obligations under the agreement would have been available to them was, of course, to be determined by the trier of fact in this action. If not, the undisclosed facts were not material, and failure to disclose them would not be actionable. But so long as an investment decision remained to be made upon any possible state of facts, the nondisclosure was in connection with the purchase of a security [for section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 purposes].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails .... (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance 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.”
2 later decisions 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.