Guy v. Duff & Phelps, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2015
3 federal appellate · 2 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. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Kugler v. Helfant · United States v. Sisson · Korf v. Ball State University · Hermes v. Hein
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even though both subsections thus authorize rescission, they were plainly designed simply to add prospective relief to the exclusively retroactive civil and criminal remedies always provided by the Blue Sky Law. Of course the Attorney General’s only role under Law §13 F can be to enjoin ongoing violations and enforce future compliance (for by definition that public official suffers no damages in the legal sense), and the following subsection’s nearly identical language plainly seems intended only to grant like authority to private parties in interest. That prospective (rather than retrospective) thrust of both subsections is emphasized by their focus on ‘continuing’ or ‘doing’ violative acts and ‘enforcing] compliance’ with the Blue Sky Law. Recission [sic] under both those provisions is thus only an adjunct to injunctive relief, where rescission may be needed to render prospective compliance meaningful or even possible.” (Emphasis omitted.) Guy, 628 F. Supp. at 263 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Upon the termination of the employment with the Corporation of any of the undersigned individuals for any reason, including resignation, discharge, death, disability or retirement, the individual whose employment is terminated or his estate shall sell to the Corporation, and the Corporation shall buy, all shares of the Corporation then owned by such individual or his estate. The price to be paid for such shares shall be equal to the adjusted book value (as hereinabove defined) of the shares on the December 31 which coincides with, or immediately precedes, the date of termination of such individual’s employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Securities Exchange Act (“1934 Act”) § 10(b)(15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)) and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act ( 17 C.F.R. § 240 .10b-5), 2. Illinois Securities Law of 1953 (“Blue Sky Law”) § 13 A (Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 121V2, ¶ 137.13 A) and 3. defendants’ common law fiduciary duties to Guy,”
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.