Williams v. Binance’s Empirical Analysis
2024
Citation profile
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from New York Southern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77M (§ 13 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78E (§ 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Pinter v. Dahl · Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. · Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“district courts in this circuit have long recognized that to make out a violation under Section 29(b), 'plaintiffs must show that the contract involved a prohibited transaction.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because a Section 29(b) claim must be predicated on an underlying violation of the Exchange Act,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“claims for recission under Section 29(b) expire one year after they accrue.”
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.