Hunt v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
852 F.2d 786 · 1988
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. (2000), Taylor v. First Union Corp. (1988)
13 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc. · Yoder v. Orthomolecular Nutrition Institute, Inc. · O'Brien v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs complaint raises grievances re-dressable by state law. Seven of plaintiffs eight causes of action — for example, breach of contract, common law fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unfair trade practices — are claims cognizable under state law. Fraudulent nonconveyance of stock is likewise a state law claim. It is not transformed into a federal claim simply because the object of the bargain was shares of stock.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the fundamental purpose of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [was] to implement a `philosophy of full disclosure,' by providing participants in stock transactions with the information they need to make their investment decisions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he alleged fraud lies, not in the actual sale of the stock, but rather in defendants' refusal to tender the shares as required by the terms of the [employment] contract.”
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.