Wallace v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2013
2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · McGee v. International Life Insurance
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While Rosenkranz (the general partner) and The Rosenkranz Group (the limited partnership) heavily rely on the fact that a California law firm, not the limited partnership, actually sent the investment and rescission papers to plaintiffs in Michigan, placing substance over form, the mailing was done on behalf of The Rosenkranz Group and clearly for its benefit. The court is satisfied that a limited partnership and its general partner, which cause to be sent into Michigan an allegedly fraudulent and misleading private placement memorandum, an offer of rescission and fraudulently prepared financial papers are also subject to the long-arm jurisdiction of federal court in Michigan. ****** While Rosenkranz and The Rosenkranz Group also summarily deny any relationship with Michigan, they nonetheless sent, or caused to be sent, to plaintiffs in Michigan a private placement memorandum, an offer of rescission and various other letters with attached financial papers. They concede that the California law firm mailed “offers of rescission and brochures to the investors of Dearborn Associates.” (Motion to Dismiss, par. 17). The Rosenkranz Group did not actually solicit plaintiffs’ investment in Dear-born Associates from which plaintiffs’ interest was transferred to The Rosenkranz Group. However, The Rosenkranz Group effectively solicited the retention of plaintiffs’ investment in the Pennsylvania limited partnership. This is enough. Rosenkranz and The Rosenkranz Group were on clear notice ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“prepared a very substantial opinion letter aware both of the kind of business [defendant] was engaged in and of the use to which the letter would be put and that it might well be relied on by investors in Michigan.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keesling v. Winstead
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.