Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
591 U.S. 71 · 2020
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77H (§ 8a of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 2462 · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Alexander v. Sandoval · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Mertens v. Hewitt Associates
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Citing the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51, Liu recognizes that to the extent a disgorgement award redresses unjust enrichment and achieves restitution, it is situated”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether a § 2462 penalty can nevertheless qualify as 'equitable relief under [15 U.S.C.] § 78u(d)(5), given that equity never 'lends its aid to enforce a forfeiture or penalty.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“effectively decided in Kokesh that disgorgement is necessarily a penalty, and thus not the kind of relief available at equity”
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.