Markowitz v. Brody’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2007
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 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. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Romano v. United States · Burks v. Lasker · Hawes v. Oakland · Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company, or by the security holders thereof, to such investment adviser or any affiliated person of such investment adviser. An action may be brought under this subsection by the Commission, or by a security holder of such registered investment company on behalf of such company, against such investment adviser, or any affiliated person of such investment adviser, or any other person enumerated in subsection (a) of this section who has a fiduciary duty concerning such compensation or payments, for breach of fiduciary duty in respect of such compensation or payments paid by such registered investment company or by the security holders thereof to such investment adviser or person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n a derivative action brought by one or more shareholders or members to enforce a right of a corporation or of an unincorporated association, the corporation or association having failed to enforce a right which may properly be asserted by it ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is plain to the Court that a security holder’s right to sue under Section 36(b) would in no way be modified or abridged within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2072 simply by requiring compliance with Rule 23.1 .... Section 2072 is not triggered by an instance where application of the federal rules would be unreasonable, but only in a case where the rules directly conflict with substantive rights. No such conflict exists here.”
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.