Newcome v. Esrey’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 1099 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Maldonado v. Dominguez (1998), Craighead
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77N (§ 14 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77T (§ 20 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77X (§ 24 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores
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.
“1. Is the plaintiff one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted ... that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff?; 2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or deny one?; 3. Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff?; 4. Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by the use of the mails, directly or indirectly— (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or (2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless the second and third Cort factors created the necessary inference of congressional intent, 'the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.'”
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.