Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 590 F.2d 785 - Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arthur Young & Company F L W

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arthur Young & Company F L W’s Empirical Analysis

590 F.2d 785 · 1979

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp. (1985), Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seaboard Corporation Admiralty Fund (1982)

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

35019791980199020002010decided

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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Mackay v. Nesbett · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,017 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Management Dynamics, Inc., and William N. Levy, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Management Dynamics, Inc., and Samuel D. Hodge · Campbell v. United States

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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and ... will not be disturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[b]ecause the defendants were not negligent”); SEC v. Arthur Young & Co., 590 F.2d 785 , 787 (9th Cir.1979) (“as-sum[ing], without deciding, that in a statutory enforcement proceeding [brought by the •SEC], negligence, rather than scienter, constitutes the standard by which an accountant’s or auditor’s performance must be measured” under Section 14(a)); Gruss v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 534 F.2d 1396 , 1403 (2d Cir.1976) (describing “negligence” as”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “fails to reveal material facts which he knows or which, but for a deliberate refusal to become informed, he should have known”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.