Seeman v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
90 F.2d 88 · 1937
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2017
13 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Sparf v. United States · Schuyler National Bank v. Bollong · Brown v. United States · Thomas v. United States · Clark v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is difficult to imagine any transaction that would be better calculated to deceive and defraud a purchaser than to sell and ship him forged imitations of genuine bonds. The [securities] act is broad enough to cover the transaction charged as a crime in the indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Kept Fifty Pay My Bill I Expect Copies of Number Twenty Lease Here Saturday Ship Immediately. “[Signed] J. Ross.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to prohibit only the sale of genuine securities by fraudulent means.”
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.