Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 891 F.2d 424 - Kamerman v. Steinberg

Kamerman v. Steinberg’s Empirical Analysis

891 F.2d 424 · 1989

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Bilzerian (1991), Swarna v. Al-Awadi (2010)

11 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1701989199020002010decided

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) · 15 U.S.C. § 78M (§ 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78R (§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1912

Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. FCX, Inc.

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) a threat, (2) which was unlawfully made, and (3) caused involuntary acceptance of contract terms, (4) because the circumstances permitted no other alternative.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “One complaining of a false or misleading statement in a Schedule 13D may seek damages only under Section 18(a) of the Act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[W]hen there is a judgment in a consolidated case that does not dispose of all claims which have been consolidated, there is a strong presumption that the judgment is not appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification. In highly unusual circumstances, a litigant may be able to overcome this presumption and convince us that we should consider the merits of the appeal immediately, rather than waiting for a final judgment.””
    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.