Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 F.2d 944 - Kosnoski v. Bruce

Kosnoski v. Bruce’s Empirical Analysis

669 F.2d 944 · 1982

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
August 2013
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2013

4 federal appellate ·

401982199020002010decided

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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Bradley v. Hullander · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,273 McGreghar Land Company, a Corporation, and v. Maurice W. Meguiar, And

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

  1. “[w]hile it is true that ordinary real estate investments, e.g., the purchase of a dwelling, usually are not securities under either Federal or State law, the facts of each case determine whether or not particular instruments are securities.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Teague v. Bakker · Joseph W. Teague Helen B. Teague Steven Allen Barker Rita Strahowski Swannee Beck Karen Perez Tucker, Lifetime Partners of Ptl, as Representatives of a Nationwide Class Consisting of 150,000 Ptl Lifetime Partners v. James O. Bakker David A. Taggart Aimee Cortese Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, and Roe Messner, A/K/A Ronald Messner Messner Enterprises Commercial Builders of Kansas, Inc. Laventhol & Horwath William J. Spears, North Carolina Securities Commission, Amicus Curiae. Joseph W. Teague Helen B. Teague Steven Allen Barker Rita Strahowski Swannee Beck Karen Perez Tucker, Lifetime Partners of Ptl, as Representatives of a Nationwide Class Consisting of 150,000 Ptl Lifetime Partners v. David A. Taggart, and James O. Bakker Aimee Cortese Roe Messner, A/K/A Ronald Messner Messner Enterprises Commercial Builders of Kansas, Inc. Laventhol & Horwath William J. Spears Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, North Carolina Securities Commission, Amicus Curiae. Joseph W. Teague Helen B. Teague Steven Allen Barker Rita Strahowski Swannee Beck Karen Perez Tucker, Lifetime Partners of Ptl, as Representatives of a Nationwide Class Consisting of 150,000 Ptl Lifetime Partners v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, and James O. Bakker David A. Taggart Aimee Cortese Roe Messner, A/K/A Ronald Messner Messner Enterprises Commercial Builders of Kansas, Inc. Laventhol & Horwath William J. Spears, North Carolina Securities Commission, Amicus Curiae. Joseph W. Teague Helen B. Teague Steven Allen Barker Rita Strahowski Swannee Beck Karen Perez Tucker, Lifetime Partners of Ptl, as Representatives of a Nationwide Class Consisting of 150,000 Ptl Lifetime Partners v. James O. Bakker, and David A. Taggart Aimee Cortese Roe Messner, A/K/A Ronald Messner Messner Enterprises Commercial Builders of Kansas, Inc. Laventhol & Horwath William J. Spears Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, North Carolina Securities Commission, Amicus Curiae
  2. “The classic test for the determination of what constitutes an “investment contract” was stated in Securities & Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946). There, the Supreme Court indicated that an investment contract would be found under Federal law where a “scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.” Id. at 301 , 66 S.Ct. at 1104 . The facts of this case square with this definition. The two deals provided for the contribution of at least $585,000 by plaintiff to an enterprise including three other parties. The record also demonstrates that plaintiff was a passive participant in these two ventures. All management responsibilities were delegated to the general partners. Plaintiff was not expected to, nor did he, take part in the running of the two partnerships. We think the District Court was correct in characterizing these investment vehicles as securities.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.