Shivers v. Amerco’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 826 · 1982
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Paracor Finance, Inc. v. General Electric Capital Corp. (1996), Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rana Research Inc Securities and Exchange Commission (1993)
17 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · South Dakota v. Nebraska · S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n of America · Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since ... Oregon ... chose to enact laws paralleling Rule 10b-5, we think it only logical that [it] intended [ORS § 59.115] to be interpreted consistently with the federal rule.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he basis of plaintiff’s grievance is that by the time they sold their stock, the informal market had been destroyed and stock prices had fallen. Plaintiffs were .-clearly not misled at the time the sales took place. The sales were not, therefore, ‘in connection with’ the allegedly deceptive or manipulative practices. Plaintiffs cannot bring themselves within the statutory requirement by selling their stock at a time when they were fully aware of the facts and after any deception had ceased.” Shivers v. Amerco, 670 F.2d 826, 830 (9th Cir.1982).”
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.