Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.2d 1368 - Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries Inc Securities and Exchange Commission

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries Inc Securities and Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.2d 1368 · 1980

Citation profile

367
cited by 367 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

110 federal appellate · 73 district · 46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 367 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Senate of Puerto Rico ex rel. Judiciary Committee v. United States Department of Justice (1987), United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1980)

110 federal appellate · 73 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 23 states

130019801990200020102020decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 7602

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Baxter v. Palmigiano · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · United States v. Morton Salt Co. · Jencks v. United States

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

  1. “does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “information which would reveal the identities of witnesses or jurors, the substance of testimony, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberation or questions of the jurors, and the like.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]n the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.