Metge v. Baehler’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 621 · 1985
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 27 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 266 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Nos. 90-2039, 90-2040 (1992), Barker v. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt (1986)
57 federal appellate · 27 district · 19 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. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Desist v. United States · Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. v. City of Chicago · Commonwealth National Bank v. Ashe
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 266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]laintiffs must establish, first, that the defendant * * * `actually participated in ( i.e., exercised control over) the operations of the [violator] in general; then he must prove that the defendant possessed the power to control the specific transaction or activity upon which the primary violation is predicated, but he need not prove that this later power was exercised.'”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A third category under the Alabama Act that goes beyond the comparable federal provision enumerates persons who cannot properly be considered control persons, such as employees of the seller or broker-dealers or agents who may have participated in the sale. The latter persons are included on the basis of what may be considered an express statutory aiding and abetting theory, since the employee, broker-dealer or agent must have “materially aid[ed] in the sale.” Therefore, to hold a person liable a plaintiff need not show any active connivance or participation by the alleged control person, except in the case of an employee, broker-dealer, or agent; all he need do is establish the defendant’s status, either as a controlling person, a partner, or an occupant of some other statutory classification ... plus the fact of the seller’s liability. The defendant then is left with only one defense.... He may show that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of the facts by reason of which the seller’s liability is alleged to exist.”
4 later decisions 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.