Pross v. Katz’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 455 · 1986
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. (1991), Luce v. Edelstein (1986)
30 federal appellate · 5 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. § 77Q (§ 17 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 · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Gilbert v. First National Bank of Jackson · Cryts v. French · Dewees 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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“impose[s] liability for a proscribed act in connection with the purchase or sale of a security; it is not sufficient to allege that a defendant has committed a proscribed act in a transaction of which the pledge of a security is a part.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person, (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security ... any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest for the protection of investors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“integral to the purchase and sale of the securities in question.”
2 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.