Lewis v. McAdam’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 800 · 1985
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2017
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Scalza v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the plain meaning of the statutory language is inadequate to effect the congressional purpose of providing an enforcement mechanism against insider trading. That a merger may result in a corporation succeeding to an action formerly held by an individual is a consequence dictated by the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have no constitutional authority to rewrite a [securities] statute simply because we may determine that it is susceptible of improvement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Had Congress wanted to discourage this practice by conferring standing on shareholders of a parent corporation whose wholly owned subsidiary absorbed the original issuing corporation, it knew how to do so. Cf. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 571-72 [ 99 S.Ct. 2479, 2486-87 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 ] (1979) —(refusal to interpret section 17(a) [of the 1934 Act] as creating a private right of action). Accordingly, we conclude that Congress included in the statutory language of section 16(b) all the remedies it deemed appropriate. See Middlesex County Sewerage Authority et al. v. National Sea Clammers Association, et al, 453 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2623-24 , 69 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (1981); Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 [ 100 S.Ct. 242, 246 , 62 L.Ed.2d 146 ] (1979) (where a statute provides a particular remedy, we must be chary of reading others into it). 762 F.2d at 804 .”
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.