Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 693 F.2d 932 - Harmsen v. Smith

Harmsen v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

693 F.2d 932 · 1982

Citation profile

150
cited by 150 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 19 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 150 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Smith v. Harmsen (1983), 24 Cal. 4th 906 - Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty. (2001)

55 federal appellate · 19 district · 7 state decisions

8201982199020002010decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 82 · 12 U.S.C. § 93 · 12 U.S.C. § 94 · 15 U.S.C. § 77C (§ 3 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78T (§ 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Warth v. Seldin · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Cort v. Ash

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

  1. “(1) the existence of an independent primary wrong; (2) actual knowledge by the alleged aider and abettor of the wrong and of his or her role in furthering it; and (3) substantial assistance in the wrong.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he law of other states relating to the pendent claims is significantly different from California’s and, more importantly, that the interests of other states would be impaired by application of California law to these non-resident plaintiffs, [citations omitted].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sufficient facts must be introduced so that the court can arrive at an intelligent estimate without speculation or conjecture.”
    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.