San Francisco-Oklahoma Petroleum Exploration Corp. v. Carstan Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
765 F.2d 962 · 1985
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc. (1998), First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Pring (1992)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Myzel v. Fields · Lanza v. Drexel & 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The defendant' had the burden to demonstrate the exception to Section [15] — a lack of knowledgé.’ This he attempted to do by taking the position that he was a figurehead; that ... he- did not participate in any way; and that he had made no effort to learn what the corporation was doing. When reliance is placed on his testimony it demonstrates that he must have made a conscious effort not to know. This established that he had not performed his duties as a director. He had the opportunity to know as there is no hint whatever that this is a case where a director or officer made an effort to find out and was unable to find the facts or was prevented from doing so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every person who, by or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise, or who, pursuant to or in connection with an agreement or understanding with one or more other persons by or through stock ownership, agency, or otherwise, controls any person liable under sections 77k or 771 of this title, shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person had no knowledge of or reasonable ground to believe in the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability of the controlled person is alleged to exist.”
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.