Securities & Exchange Commission v. Unifund SAL’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 1028 · 1990
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc. (1995), Irvin Dana Beal and Robert Macdonald v. Henry Stern (1999)
15 federal appellate · 24 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78U (§ 21a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Chiarella v. United States · Castor v. United States · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantial showing of likelihood of success”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“permit the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant whose “conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559, 567 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). One circumstance making such anticipation reasonable is where a defendant has acted in such a way as to have “caused consequences” in the forum state, see Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp. v. Maxwell, 468 F.2d at 1340 ; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 37 (1989). Though not every causal connection between action abroad and ultimate injury to American investors will suffice, see Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d [974] at 1000 [(2d Cir.1975)] (“even assuming ... some causal relation ... the test for in personam jurisdiction is somewhat more demanding”), Unifund’s transactions are alleged to have had a rather direct and an unmistakeably foreseeable effect within the United States. It is alleged to have traded, on the basis of inside information, options of a United States corporation listed exclusively on a United States stock exchange. That activity created the near certainty that United States shareholders, who could reasonably be expected to hold [the trad ed] securities, would be adversely affected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this title, or of any rule or regulation prescribed under authority thereof, the Commission may, in its discretion, bring an action in any district court of the United States, or United States court of any Territory, to enjoin such acts or practices, and upon a proper showing, a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted without bond.”
2 later decisions 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.