Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Noble Metals International, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
67 F.3d 766 · 1995
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Reilly v. NatWest Markets Group Inc. (1999), Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc. (1998)
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 7 U.S.C. § 13C · 7 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 6 · 7 U.S.C. § 6B
Relies on Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States · United States v. Kordel · United States v. Monsanto
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Futures contracts’ are governed by the CEA and concomitantly, subject to CFTC regulations. ‘Futures contracts’ are contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery. The term ‘future delivery,’ however, explicitly does not include any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment or delivery. Contracts falling under this latter definition are typically referred to as ‘cash forward’ contracts. The purpose of this ‘cash forward’ exception is to permit those parties who contemplate physical transfer of the commodity to set up contracts that (1) defer shipment but guarantee to sellers that they will have buyers and visa ver-sa, and (2) reduce the risk of price fluctuations, without subjecting the parties to burdensome regulations. These contracts are not subject to the CFTC regulations because those regulations are intended to govern only speculative markets; they are not meant to cover contracts wherein the commodity in question has an ‘inherent value’ to the transacting parties. We hold that in determining whether a particular commodities contract falls within the cash forward exception, courts must focus on whether there is a legitimate expectation that physical delivery of the actual commodity by the seller to the original contracting buyer will occur in the future.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no indication that Congress drew this exclusion otherwise than to meet a particular need such as that of a farmer to sell part of next season’s harvest at a set price to a grain elevator or miller. These cash forward contracts guarantee the farmer a buyer for his crop and provide the buyer with an assured price.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he term 'future delivery' ... shall not include any sale of any cash commodity for deferred shipment or delivery.” 7 U.S.C. § 2 . A "cash forward”
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.