Leist v. Simplot’s Empirical Analysis
638 F.2d 283 · 1980
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran (1982), Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (2008)
44 federal appellate · 7 district · 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
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Cort v. Ash · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, 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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When as here Congress adds a new remedy ..., where other remedies had been clearly recognized, it would be expected to say so if it meant the new remedy to be exclusive.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In contrast to the limited scope of the 1968 amendments, the 1974 amendments, 88 Stat. 1389 (1974), constituted a complete overhaul of the Act. They broadened its coverage from the agricultural commodities with which it had historically been concerned to include “all other goods and articles ... and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in”, subject to certain exceptions designed primarily to exclude securities. Consistently with this expansion in coverage, enforcement was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to a newly constituted Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellees are wrong in saying that § 4b by its terms only prohibits “any person” from defrauding “any other person” in connection with the making of a futures contract for or on behalf of that other person. Thus if A defrauds broker B, who was making a futures contract for C, A would have defrauded C in connection with a futures contract made for C, although C is not A’s customer.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.