Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 FSUPP 880 - Marchese v. Nelson

Marchese v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

2 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1961

Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · In re Disbarment of Johnson · Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · Morris v. Gressette

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange, (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by use of any means or instrumen-talily of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange— (b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) damage to the plaintiff; (2) caused by-reliance on defendant’s misrepresentations or omissions of material facts, or on a scheme by defendant to defraud, (3) made with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud, (4) in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and (5) furthered by defendant’s use of the mails or facilities of interstate commerce.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.