Chicago Mercantile Exchange v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 537 · 1989
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably United States v. McKinney (1990), Associates in Adolescent Psychiatry, S.C. v. Home Life Insurance (1991)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78Y (§ 25 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 7 U.S.C. § 2 · 7 U.S.C. § 2A · 7 U.S.C. § 6C · 7 U.S.C. § 6N
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A futures contract, roughly speaking, is a fungible promise to buy or sell a particular commodity at a fixed date in the future. Futures contracts are fungible because they have standard terms and each side’s obligations are guaranteed by a clearing house. Contracts are entered into without prepayment, although the markets and clearing house will set margin to protect their own interests. Trading occurs in ‘the contract,’ not in the commodity. Most futures contracts may be performed by delivery of the commodity (wheat, silver, oil, etc.). Some (those based on financial instruments such as T-bills or on the value of an index of stocks) do not allow delivery. Unless the parties cancel their obligations by buying or selling offsetting positions, the long must pay the price stated in the contract (e.g., $1.00 per gallon for 1,000 gallons of orange juice) and the short must deliver; usually, however, they settle in cash, with the payment based on changes in the market. If the market price, say, rose to $1.50 per gallon, the short would pay $500 (500 per gallon); if the price fell, the long would pay. The extent to which the settlement price of a commodity futures contract tracks changes in the price of the cash commodity depends on the size and balance of the open positions in ‘the contract’ near the settlement date.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a public document, which the court would be free to consult whether or not anyone had supplied it; lodging simply reduces the workload of the court's librarian.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has authority to regulate trading of futures contracts (including futures on securities) and options on futures contracts.”); Mallen v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 1105, 1107 (N.D.Ga.1985) (”
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.