Finn v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district ·

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

1. ““Wilko’s reasoning cannot be mechanically transferred to the 1934 Act ... Jurisdiction under the 1934 Act is narrower, being restricted to the federal courts ... More important, the [private] cause of action under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ... is implied rather than express ... [Thus, unlike the non-waiver provision in the 1933 Act, t]he phrase [in the 1934 Act which prohibits parties from] ‘waivpng] compliance with any provision of this chapter,’ 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(a) ... (emphasis added), is ... literally inapplicable [to the arbitrability of 1934 Act claims]. Moreover, Wilko’s solicitude for the federal cause of action — the ‘special right’ established by Congress ... — is not necessarily appropriate where the cause of action is judicially implied and not so different from the common law action ... I reiterate [these reservations] ... to emphasize that the question remains open and the contrary holdings of the lower courts must be viewed with some doubt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 632 F. Supp. 140 - Jope v. Bear Stearns & Co.