Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,083 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Flight Transportation Corporation, FTC Executive Air Charter, Inc., FTC Cayman, Ltd., and William Rubin, Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corporation, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Flight Transportation Corporation, FTC Executive Air Charter, Inc., FTC Cayman, Ltd., and William Rubin, Joyce Rubin’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably United States v. Union Electric Co. (1995), San Juan County v. United States (2007)
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
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 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Donaldson v. United States · Trbovich v. United Mine Workers · Kirchberg v. Feenstra · Nuesse v. Camp
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Community Action, 558 F.2d 861 (8th Cir.1977), for example, a group of homeowners was allowed to intervene in an action involving the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance which placed a temporary moratorium on the operation of abortion clinics. The potential loss in the market value of the intervenors’ homes constituted a sufficient “interest” under Rule 24(a)(2) even though three events would have had to take place before the homeowners experienced any actual loss: (1) the city had to lose the court fight on the constitutionality of the ordinance, (2) the abortion clinic had to open, and (3) the clinic’s operation had to lead to a reduction in the homeowners’ property values.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1407(a) of Title 28, or any other provision of law, no action for equitable relief instituted by the Commission pursuant to the securities laws shall be consolidated or coordinated with other actions not brought by the Commission, even though such other actions may involve common questions of fact, unless such consolidation is consented to by the Commission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he purpose of the subsection is simply to exempt the Commission from the compulsory consolidation and coordination provisions applicable to multidistrict litigation. It does not say that no one may intervene in an action brought by the SEC without its consent. It does not mention Fed. R.Civ.P. 24, nor does Rule 24 contain any clause giving special privileges to the SEC.”
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.