Deutsch Energy Co. v. Mazur’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 1567 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Rivanna Trawlers Unlimited v. Thompson Trawlers, Inc. (1988), Holden v. Hagopian (1992)
14 federal appellate · 2 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. § 771 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) · 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · United States v. McConney
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.
“Both parties rely on dicta from Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897 , [ 102 S.Ct. 396 , 70 L.Ed.2d 212 ] (1981). The Williamson court, in a well-reasoned opinion, said that “[a]n investor who is offered an interest in a general partnership or joint venture should be on notice ... that his ownership rights are significant, and that the federal securities acts will not protect him from a mere failure to exercise his rights.” Id. at 422 . The court identified as an exception to this rule a case where an investor “has irrevocably delegated his powers, or is incapable of exercising them, or is so dependent on the particular expertise of the promoter or manager that he has no reasonable alternative to reliance on that person.” Id. at 422-23 . The parties in this case appear to agree that DEC possessed, if not a general partnership interest, at least significant managerial powers under the purchase agreements. DEC claims, however, that it falls within the Williamson exception because the Deutsches’ inexperience in the oil and gas business and their residence in California made them incapable of exercising any managerial powers over the drilling projects in Kansas. The undisputed facts, however, simply do not support their claimed lack of sophistication in financial affairs. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“inexperienced and unknowledgeable members of the general public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stewart v. Ragland
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.