Daily v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 496 · 1983
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth (1985), Yoder v. Orthomolecular Nutrition Institute, Inc. (1985)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Rose v. Lundy · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman · Tcherepnin v. Knight
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“represents to many people, both trained and untrained in business matters, the paradigm of a security.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If Congress had wanted to exempt the privately negotiated sale of a controlling interest of stock in a small business from this antifraud provision it could have done so. In this case, the transaction is no doubt exempt, from the registration requirements of ’33 Act, since it would qualify as a private offering under Section 4(2) of the ’33 Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77d(2). Nor would the transaction fall under the prohibition against stock manipulation found in Section 9 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78i, which applies only to securities exchange. Congress should and did exempt small, private sales of stock from many of the requirements of the securities laws, but chose to apply the Section 10(b) antifraud provision to all stock.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Seventh Circuit has recently held that, under the doctrine, when a purchaser acquires more than 50% of a business, his purpose in purchasing the stock will be presumed to have been entrepreneurship rather than investment, and he will not be covered by the securities laws unless the presumption can be overcome by a showing that the main purpose was investment. Sutter v. Groen, 687 F.2d 197, 203 (7th Cir.1982). A rule that tells a defrauded purchaser that he has no federal remedy since he bought 51% of the stock in a business, while leaving a remedy for his partner who bought 49% of the stock, seems no less arbitrary than the alternative rule.” Daily v. Morgan, 701 F.2d at 503.”
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.