Robinson v. Difford’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co · United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Railroad Commission v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · 69 F. Supp. 512 - Kardon v. National Gypsum Co. · Yazoo Co v. Thomas
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendants’ first argument for the dismissal of the complaint is that the Securities Exchange Act does not apply where, as in the present case, the securities in question were neither registered on a national exchange nor traded in the over-the-counter market. Clearly this argument is without foundation. The Act says, Sec. 10(b) * * * Rule X-10B-5 of the Commission, which was ‘prescribed’ by the Commission pursuant to the power given to it by this section of the Act is: ^ ^ “The Act applies both to securities registered on a national securities exchange and to ‘any security not so registered’. Rule X-10B-5 clearly makes the acts set forth in the complaint unlawful. Consequently, the Act applies to the present case even though the securities involved were not registered on a securities exchange and were never traded in the over-the-counter market. * * * However, defendants vigorously contend that the limited purpose of the Act was to regulate only transactions in securities registered on a national exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market, and not to regulate private transactions. In support of this contention they point to the preamble statement (section 2, 15 U.S. C.A. § 78b) of the general purpose of the Act and to statements made by members of Congress when the Act was under consideration therein. Without deciding that these statements do show such a limited purpose as is contended by defendants, this court must reject defendants’ contention, because section 10(b”
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.