590 F. Supp. 204 - Johnson v. Chilcott’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2011
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran · Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York · White v. Ewing
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... In [the prior version of] § 13c(a) Congress clearly indicated its intent that there be no private judicial remedy for aiding and. abetting violations of any CEA provision. Section 13c(a) states that “[a]ny person who ... aids ... [and] abets ... a violation of any of the provisions of this Act ... may be responsible in administrative proceedings ... as a principal,” (Emphasis added). ... [N]o federal court, before the 1974 amendments, had ever found a private judicial remedy for aiding and abetting liability. Despite the state of the law in 1974, Congress chose not to remove the administrative remedy language from § 13c(a). Not surprisingly, no court after the 1974 amendments found a private judicial remedy for aiding and abetting liability. Only since 1983, when Congress removed the express limitation of remedy, has there existed a private judicial remedy for aiding and abetting CEA violations. The inquiry whether Congress intended to imply, in §§ 4b and 4o, private rights of action for aiding and abetting is abbreviated by the express limitation of remedy found in § 13c(a). “[I]t is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it. ‘When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode.’ ” Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19-20 , 100 S.Ct. 242, 246-247 , 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979); ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“misrepresentations and omissions are precisely what fueled continued investor contributions. . . . Chilcott's fraud is what attracted money to the fund. The fund could not have continued to exist but for Chilcott's fraud.”
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.