Frederiksen v. Poloway’s Empirical Analysis
637 F.2d 1147 · 1981
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2009 · most notably 109 Wash. 2d 107 - Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System (1988), Chemical Bank v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (1984)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
Relies on Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co. · Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman · Tcherepnin v. Knight · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“doctrine, providing that under certain circumstances, the transfer of 100 percent of the stock of a corporation incident to the sale of an ongoing business to a purchaser who will manage or direct the management of the business does not constitute the sale of a security within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Irving P. Seldin, When Stock is Not a Security: The”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not involve a sale of corporate stock to raise capital for profit-making purposes. The plaintiffs sought to acquire [defendant’s] business in its entirety. The “stock” sale was a method used to vest [plaintiff] with ownership of that business.... The [defendant’s] stock ... merely was passed incidentally as an indicia of ownership of the business assets....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barsy v. Verin · Zilker v. Klein“[T]he test for determining whether the reliance element has been met is “whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant one, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or the success of the enterprise.””
2 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.