Blount v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
61 F.3d 938 · 1995
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co. (1998), Michigan State v. Miller (1997)
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 7 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. § 78F (§ 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Y (§ 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. O'Brien · United States v. Lopez · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a regulation is not fatally underinclusive simply because an alternative regulation, which would restrict more speech or the speech of more people, could be more effective.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No objection to an order or rule of the Commission, for which review is sought under this section, may be considered by the court unless it was urged before the Commission or there was reasonable ground for failure to do so.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ensure that the profferred state interest actually underlies the law, [so] a rule is struck for underinclusiveness only if it cannot fairly be said to advance any genuinely substantial governmental interest because it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted goals, or limited incremental support.”
3 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.