Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 690 P2D 829 - People v. Milne

People v. Milne’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
9
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

1 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably WesBanco Bank Barnesville v. Rafoth (1997), Submission of Interrogatories on House Bill 99-1325 (1999)

1 district · 32 state decisions

17019841990200020102020decided

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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1014

Relies on Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman

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

  1. “[A] purpose of [the statute requiring that sellers of securities be licensed] is to protect the public from persons who regularly deal in securities transactions. As part of the statutory licensing procedure, the securities commissioner may require information relating to the applicant's business history, financial condition and history, proposed method of doing business, and other matters relating to the character and qualifications of the applicant. The failure to obtain a license in accordance with the statute and the rules enacted by the securities commissioner deprives the public of the minimum level of protection required by the General Assembly for those who sell securities. The element of sale in [the statute criminalizing the unlicensed sale of securities] is as essential to a conviction as the failure to obtain a license. In this case, it was the defendant's unlicensed sales that caused persons to part with and lose considerable sums of money. As part of defendant's unregulated business activity, he allowed loans to be refinanced without additional collateral. He also applied the proceeds from the sale of recently issued notes to meet payment obligations on other outstanding notes, in a characteristic "Ponzi" financing scheme. As the result of defendant's conduct, the investors suffered "actual, pecuniary damage" within the meaning of [the restitution statute]. As such, the investors were as much the "victims" of the defendant's crime as would be persons who submit ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) As a condition of every sentence to probation, the court shall order that the defendant make full restitution to the victim of his or her conduct or to a member of the victim’s immediate family for the actual damages that were sus-tained_ Such restitution shall be ordered by the court as a condition of probation. The amount of such restitution shall be equal to the actual pecuniary damages sustained by the victim. The court shall fix the manner and time of performance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “protect[ing] the public from the financial insecurity and fraudulent activities of persons regularly engaged in the sale of securities,”
    1 later decision 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.