Dahl v. J "Bj" Pinter’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 985 · 1986
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2009
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77P (§ 16 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · Blasius v. United States · Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner · Frost Co v. Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'only where some unconscionable act of one coming for relief has immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks in respect of the matter in litigation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“WHEREAS the parties constitute a predetermined and limited group of sophisticated and knowledgeable well informed investors who desire to arrange for participation in an oil and/or gas drilling venture as an investment and do declare that it is not for the purpose of reselling their interest therein. (These participating interests are being sold without the benefit of registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and on reliance of rule 146 thereunder).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pinter v. Dahl“to willful misconduct rather than to merely negligent conduct. The improper conduct which falls within the maxim must involve intention as opposed to an inadvertent act or a misapprehension of legal rights; the conduct must be morally reprehensible as to known facts.”
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.