SEC v. Ahmed’s Empirical Analysis
2023
Citation profile
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Connecticut District Court)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80B
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · Kansas v. Hendricks · Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson · Hudson v. United States · Smith v. Doe
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to the one at whose expense the benefit was obtained, unless, in addition to [their] innocence, the recipient is protected because [they] gave value”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“of any unjust enrichment by the person who received such unjust enrichment as a result of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an innocent person who obtains a benefit through the wrongful act of a third person”
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.