Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 856 F.2d 473 - Capri v. Murphy

Capri v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

856 F.2d 473 · 1988

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
5
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P. (1991), Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. (1996)

16 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions

28019881990200020102020decided

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. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933)

Relies on Pinter v. Dahl · Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corporation · Kyrtatas v. Stop & Shop, Inc. · Preferred Accident Insurance v. Musante, Berman & Steinberg Co. · Schillner v. H. Vaughan Clarke & 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An individual is a 'statutory seller'-and therefore a potential section 12(a)(2) defendant-if he: (1) 'passed title, or other interest in the security, to the buyer for value,' or (2) 'successfully solicit[ed] the purchase [of a security], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities['] owner.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “At the very least, ... the language of § 12(1) contemplates a buyer-seller relationship not unlike traditional contractual privity. Thus, it is settled that § 12(1) imposes liability on the owner who passed title, or other interest in the security, to the buyer for value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “promotional efforts were done 'at the behest of [defendants]' he”
    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.