Ackerberg v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 1328 · 1989
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Berckeley Investment Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt (2006), Munoz v. Green Tree Financial Corp. (2001)
19 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc. · Wilko v. Swan
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“congressional intent was to include as underwriters all persons who might operate as conduits for securities being placed into the hands of the investing public.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“any person who has purchased from an issuer with a view to, or offers or sells for an issuer in connection with, the distribution of any security, or participates or has a direct or indirect partic ipation in any such undertaking, or participates or has a participation in the direct or indirect underwriting of any such undertaking .... As used in this paragraph, the term ‘issuer’ shall include, in addition to an issuer, any person directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by the issuer, or any person under direct or indirect common control with the issuer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Since exempt transactions are those as to which “there is no practical need for the (the bill’s) application,” the applicability of [the Section 4(2) private placement exemption] should turn on whether the particular class of persons affected needs the protection of the Act. An offering to those who are shown to be able to fend for themselves is a transaction not involving any public offering.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.