Hollinger’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 39 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Janas v. McCracken (1999)
23 federal appellate · 39 district · 12 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a highly unreasonable omission, involving not merely simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, and which presents a danger of misleading buyers or sellers that is either known to the defendant or is so obvious that the actor must have been aware of it.”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any person to whom such controlled person is liable, unless the controlling person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly induce the act or acts constituting the violation or cause of action.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he broker-dealer may also',' of course, rely on a contention that the representative was acting outside of the broker-dealer’s- statutory “control.” For example, [the broker-dealer] could argue that when [the investors] -entrusted their money to [the registered' representative,] they were not reasonably relying upon him as a registered representative of [the broker-dealer], but were placing the money with [him] for purposes other .than investment in markets .to which [he] had access only by reason of his relationship with [the]. broker-dealer.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.