Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 F.2d 1149 - Chemetron Corporation v. Business Funds, Inc.

Chemetron Corporation v. Business Funds, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

682 F.2d 1149 · 1982

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
11
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Swentek v. Usair, Inc. (1987), 15 Collier bankr.cas.2d 952, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,512 Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. David L. Butler, James L. Grauer, James E. Kassis, and One City Centre Associates, a California Limited Partnership (1986)

59 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states

8701982199020002010decided

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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Ashe v. Swenson · Catlin v. United States · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores

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

  1. “Tactically [the defendant] chose to litigate fully, ... risking an adverse decision. He lost on that risk, and only when he lost did he decide to settle, fearing offensive collateral estoppel. Yet now he seeks to avoid the consequences of that risk by elevating form over substance. He cannot have it both ways. The findings of fact against [the defendant] in [the prior action] are sufficiently final to permit their use in this case. On remand, [he] should be collaterally es-topped from relitigating those facts.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, [or] any security not so registered, ... for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, ... which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) a series of transactions in a security creating actual or apparent trading in that security or raising or depressing the price of that security, (2) carried out with scienter (3) for the purpose of inducing the security’s sale or purchase by others, (4) was relied on by the plaintiff, (5) and affected the plaintiff’s purchase or selling price.”
    3 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.