In re LTV Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 13 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc. (1983), Sprague v. Thorn Americas, Inc. (1997)
11 federal appellate · 13 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Upjohn Company v. United States · Fisher v. United States · United States v. Nobles · Chrysler Corporation v. Brown
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Allowing the type of discovery requested here may kill the goose that lays the golden egg — the Commission may be deprived of a useful enforcement option, while shareholders will hardly be benefited by inhibiting corporate self-investigation. That this species of “private ordering” or more accurately, “shared ordering”, brings to the SEC’s investigative-regulatory role a dimension of potentially great public benefit cannot be denied. The SEC simply cannot staff individual cases with lawyers of [the Special Officer’s] experience, skill and support facilities; at least not without great risk of misallocation of its resources, We ought at least acknowledge that the choice before us may be between assembling a beefed-up administrative super-force capable of staffing investigations of any size and the practice of regulatory triage. This is not to suggest that we sit as a supportive arm of the SEC. It is to say that we must construe claims of privilege in their true factual context to ensure that the underlying policy justifications are served.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[corporation] has established that the joint conferences undertaken with representatives of [its auditor] were confidential, concerned common issues, and were intended to facilitate representation in proceedings involving the SEC . . . . Both . . . were subpoenaed by the SEC before the joint discussions which the class seeks to discover.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“LTV's disclosure of the additional materials to the SEC does not justify the class' discovery of the identity of those documents believed by LTV to be most important [i.e., privileged]”
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.