Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 826 F.2d 347 - Crocker v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Crocker v. Federal Deposit Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

826 F.2d 347 · 1987

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
9
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 30 Cal. 4th 167 - Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003), Simmons v. Miller (2001)

28 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions

2301987199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · R.A.G.S. Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt · Rand v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc.

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

  1. “could never have realized the artificially high profit that they claim to have unjustly lost”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]f course, '[if] the [plaintiffs] had received . . . [inside] information and sold their stock before the public was made aware [of it], such a profit would have resulted from insider trading in violation of the securities laws.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Schrag v. Dinges a & Schaffer Schrag Aj G R Nickelson · Galen Schrag Merlin Kaufman Michael Maloney Dale McCurry A.J. McCurry Robert McCurry Odel McCurry Cecil McCurry James Meier William G. Schwartz, John R. Nickelson, Individually, and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Neola Nickelson, James Craig Dodd, Esq. v. Ted Dinges, Jr. Gary Dinges Mark Youngers Charles Brooks Jay Ewing Robert "Bob" Simpson Bonaventure A. Kreutzer, Jr. Denis Dieker Valley Federal Savings & Loan Association Paganica, Inc. Dinges International, Inc. Ag-Marketing Commodities, Inc. Financial Investments, Inc., and Fred Schaffer, Galen Schrag, Merlin Kaufman Michael Maloney Dale McCurry A.J. McCurry Robert McCurry Odel McCurry Cecil McCurry James Meier William G. Schwartz, John R. Nickelson, Individually, and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Neola Nickelson v. Ted Dinges, Jr. Gary Dinges Charles Brooks Jay Ewing Fredf Shaffer Robert "Bob" Simpson Bonaventure A. Kreutzer, Jr. Denis Dieker Valley Federal Savings & Loan Association Paganica, Inc. Dinges International, Inc. Ag-Marketing Commodities, Inc. Financial Investments, Inc., and Mark Youngers, Galen Schrag Merlin Kaufman Michael Maloney Dale McCurry A.J. McCurry Robert McCurry Odel McCurry Cecil McCurry James Meier William G. Schwartz, John R. Nickelson, Individually, and in His Capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Neola Nickelson v. Ted Dinges, Jr. Gary Dinges Mark Youngers Charles Brooks Jay Ewing Fred Shaffer Bonaventure A. Kreutzer, Jr Denis Dieker Valley Federal Savings & Loan Association Paganica, Inc. Dinges International, Inc. Ag-Marketing Commodities, Inc. Financial Investments, Inc., and Robert "Bob" Simpson, AKA Bob Simpson

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.