Wolgin v. Magic Marker Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986), Dura-Bilt Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Corp. (1981)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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. § 77O (§ 15 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77V (§ 22 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Ratchford v. Gay Lib
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The section 9(e) remedy differs in several respects from the implied remedy under Rule 10b-5. Section 9(e) contains a relatively short statute of limitations, permits the court to require security for costs, limits damages to losses sustained by reason of the unlawful price manipulation, provides for contribution by persons not joined as defendants in the original action, and permits the court to assess attorneys’ fees against either party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It does appear that the Altcheks could attempt to establish liability based on defendant Teitelbaum’s oral representations, rather than basing their claim on the wide-ranging price manipulation alleged in the complaint. But the several memoranda filed in connection with this motion make it abundantly clear that the Altcheks have chosen the latter approach. Thus, their claim will stand or fall based on proof of the alleged conspiracy.”
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.