Keys v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 413 · 1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner (1985), In Re Catanella and EF Hutton and Co. (1984)
6 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Landry v. All American Assurance Co. · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,889 Robert Abrahamson and Marjorie Abrahamson v. Malcolm K. Fleschner · Dike v. School Board
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is settled that when a broker, unfaithful to the trust of his customer, churns an account in the brokers control for the purpose of enhancing the broker’s commission income and in disregard of the client’s interest, there is a violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78a et seq., and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The test for determining whether a particular transaction meets the “in connection with a purchase or sale” requirement of Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 was set forth by this court in Rathborne v. Rathborne, 683 F.2d 914 (5th Cir.1982): “[W]e must ask whether the transaction has wrought a fundamental change in the nature of plaintiffs investment____””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such a significant change in the nature of the investment or in the investment risks as to amount to a new investment”
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.