In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation. Henry Puchall v. Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Riley’s Empirical Analysis
823 F.2d 1349 · 1987
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Hollinger, Sanders v. Clemco Industries (1988)
71 federal appellate · 11 district · 14 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. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“first, whether the plaintiff is within the class for whose `especial' benefit the statute was enacted; second, whether legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly, supports creating or denying a remedy; and third, whether implying a remedy is consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The three factors which the Supreme Court has emphasized in applying the Cort v. Ash test — the statute’s language, its legislative history, and its statutory scheme — all point in precisely the same direction: Congress did not intend in 1933 to create a private right of action under section 17(a). ‘We are reluctant to tamper with an enforcement scheme crafted with such evident care____ “The presumption that a remedy was deliberately omitted from a statute is strongest when Congress has enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme including an integrated system of procedures for enforcement.” ’ [Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.] Russell, 473 U.S. [134, 147, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3093 , 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) ] [quoting Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. [77, 97, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 1583-84 , 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981)]. The [1933 Act] contained such an integrated scheme; unless the plaintiffs can establish that Congress later preserved a judicially-created private remedy under section 17(a), any decision to create such a right of action must be left to future congressional action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“a general censure of fraudulent practices, ... there simply is no indication, explicit or implicit, of legislative intent to create a private right of action under section 17(a).... The presence of express civil remedies within the same act militates against a finding of Congressional intent to create further remedies .... Implying a private right of action under section 17(a) is also inconsistent with the statutory scheme of the Securities Act.... [Doing so] attributes to Congress the rather bizarre intention of enabling a purchaser to avoid the statute of limitations and other procedural limitations which it explicitly provided would apply to private actions under sections 11 and 12.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.