Securities & Exchange Commission v. Washington County Utility District’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.2d 218 · 1982
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Hollinger, Securities & Exchange Commission v. Blavin (1985)
25 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 77T (§ 20 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Chiarella v. United States · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. · Fisher v. United States
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... “some other party has committed a securities law violation, if the accused party had general awareness that his role was part of an overall activity that is improper, and if the accused aider-abettor knowingly and substantially assisted the violation.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A duty to disclose naturally devolved on those who had direct contacts with the 'other side.' Direct contacts require neither physical presence nor face to face conversation. A person undertaking to furnish information which is misleading because of a failure to disclose material facts is a primary participant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“must show that the silence of the accused aider and abettor 'was consciously intended to aid the securities law violation,' and must prove either a culpable state of mind, or conduct from which a culpable state of mind can be inferred.”
3 later decisions 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.