Securities & Exchange Commission v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
626 F.2d 633 · 1980
Citation profile
112 federal appellate · 40 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 309 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc. (1989), 109 Wash. 2d 107 - Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System (1988)
112 federal appellate · 40 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
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 309 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In assessing proximate cause, courts focus first on whether a defendant’s acts were the actual cause of the injury, ie., whether ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct, there would have been no sale. Nicewarner v. Bleavins, supra, 244 F.Supp. [261] at 266 (D.Colo.1965); see Hill York Corp. v. American International Franchises, Inc., supra, 448 F.2d at 693 ; Lennerth v. Mendenhall, supra, 234 F.Supp. at 65 . A finding of ‘but for’ causation, alone, does not satisfy proximate cause, however. See Nicewarner v. Bleavins, supra, 244 F.Supp. at 266; R. Jennings & H. Marsh, Securities Regulation 10 96 (4th ed. 1977); W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 238-39, 244 (4th ed. 1971). Prior to the issuance of a security, numerous persons perform mechanical acts without which there could be no sale. For example, a printer may prepare key documents or a bank may advance cash to a customer upon the customer’s presentation of any instrument and then pass the instrument to another person. Both would satisfy a ‘but for’ causation test, but these acts nonetheless do not render the defendants sellers. See First Trust . & Savings Bank v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., 214 F.2d 320 (3d Cir.1954); Ruder, Multiple Defendants in Securities Law Fraud Cases, 120 U.Pa.L.Rev. 597 , 646 (1972). Before a person’s acts can be considered the proximate cause of a sale, his acts- must also be a substantial factor in bringing about the transaction. Lewis v. Walston & Co., Inc., 487 F.2d 617 , 621-22 (5th Cir”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Whether the sales are part of a single plan of financing; (b) Whether the sales involve issuance of the same class of securities; (c) Whether the sales have been made at or about the same time; (d) Whether the same type of consideration is being received; and (e) Whether the sales are made for the same general purpose.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had the burden of showing there was a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the securities laws.”
7 later decisions 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.