Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 637 F.2d 685 - Securities & Exchange Commission v. G. C. George Securities, Inc.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. G. C. George Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

637 F.2d 685 · 1981

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Baldwin-United Corporation (1985), Cannata v. Department of Environmental Protection (1990)

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

2501981199020002010decided

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 Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Houltin v. United States · Parisi v. Davidson · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co. · Ker v. California

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

  1. “When the SEC initiated the present case in 1975, it had the choice of proceeding administratively (15 U.S.C. §§ 77v(a), 78aa). The SEC chose to first proceed against Pennaluna [defendant] in the district court. In doing so, jurisdiction was conferred in the district court over the parties and the subject matter ... it expressly retained jurisdiction to insure compliance with the agreement. In addition to this retained jurisdiction, the district court also had the authority to consider Pennaluna’s request for relief under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “both the interests of the agency in applying its expertise, correcting its own errors, making a proper record, enjoying appropriate independence of decision and maintaining an administrative process free from deliberate flouting, and the interests of private parties in finding adequate redress for their grievances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “administrative remedies are inadequate or not efficacious, pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury will result, or the administrative proceedings would be void.”
    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.