Catizone v. Memry Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2014
2 federal appellate · 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. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp. · Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“requires that in actions regarding the rights and duties of an issuer of securities with respect to registration of transfer of a certificated security a court should apply the substantive and choice of law rules of the jurisdiction in which the issuer is incorporated.” See Catizone v. Memry Corp., 897 F.Supp. 732, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (discussing choice of law principles under U.C.C. § 8106). The Official Comments to the recent revisions to the Commercial Code further clarify the policy behind the rule:”
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.