EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Youngblood’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Garza v. Alviar · Glover v. Texas General Indemnity Co. · Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc. · Rourke v. Garza · La Sara Grain Co. v. First National Bank of Mercedes
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s branch manager testified that, as a ‘full-service brokerage house,’ Hutton received higher commissions than would a ‘discount brokerage house,’ because more services were provided for their customers. In the transaction sued upon, appellant was to be paid a 4% commission for assisting appellees in obtaining their securities which would accomplish a tax free rollover. The services of tax and investment counseling and assisting in the purchase of securities were inextricably intertwined. See Knight v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 627 S.W.2d 382 (Tex.1982). Appellees sought and received from appellant expert tax and investment counseling as to the taxable consequences of the transaction, without which the sale of securities would not have been made. We find that the appellees were consum ers of a service purchased from appellant, E.F. Hutton.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Frizzell v. Cook
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.