Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 683 F.3d 734 - Bennett v. Durham

Bennett v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis

683 F.3d 734 · 2012

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933)

Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Pinter v. Dahl · Arthur Young & Co. v. Reves · Ackerman v. Schwartz · Wilson v. Misko

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

  1. “It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities ... by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to- defraud, or (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “officers and directors 'relied completely' on [the defendant's] work and would have 'structured their sales operation in any way [the defendant] advised.' " Id. at 738 (quoting appellate brief). The court rejected that argument as "suggest[ing] only that [the company's] actual partners, officers and directors relied heavily on [the defendant], not that [he] was the one calling the shots.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Clayton offered no facts on summary judgment from which we could infer that Durham did anything beyond what would be expected of a securities attorney providing run-of-the-mine legal services.”
    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.