Kroog v. Mait’s Empirical Analysis
712 F.2d 1148 · 1983
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 456 So. 2d 1175 - Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young (1984), Commerce Park at DFW Freeport v. Mardian Construction Co. (1984)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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. § 77N (§ 14 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77R (§ 18 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Wilko v. Swan · Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has mandated that federal preemption questions be addressed through a two-tier inquiry. The reviewing court must first ask whether there is “such actual conflict between the two schemes or regulation that both cannot stand in the same area.” Florida Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141 , 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). If such “actual conflict” is found, the inquiry is at an end. Or, as the Supreme Court has stated, “A holding of federal exclusion of state law is inescapable and requires no inquiry into congressional design ivhere compliance with both federal and state regulation is a physical impossibility for one engaged in interstate commerce.... ” Id. at 142-43 , 83 S.Ct. at 1217 . (emphasis added). In short, the assessment of “actual” or “facial” conflict is a threshold inquiry we cannot escape; only if this inquiry is answered negatively can we entertain arguments as to the intent of Congress to occupy the field or preclude the kind of state regulation at issue. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 , 103 S.Ct. 1713, 1722 , 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983) (“Even where Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation in a specific area, state law is preempted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law.”); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158, 165 , 98 S.Ct. 988, 994-995, 998 , 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978); DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 363 , 96”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he conflict we face is plainly not one of federal arbitration procedures versus Wisconsin substantive securities regulation. The conflict is rather between two procedural demands — one that commands, and the other that prohibits, the arbitration of brokerage contract claims. If the Arbitration Act prevails, Wisconsin substantive securities law remains intact, and would indeed have to be considered by the arbitrator of the dispute here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.”
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.