Ferris v. Haymore’s Empirical Analysis
967 F.2d 946 · 1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 2607 · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 26 U.S.C. § 5043
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States · Bowsher v. SmithKline Corp.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Granting recoupment under the section to a guilty defendant would substantially dilute not only the section's punitive but also its deterrent force by spreading among several fraudulent parties what are in truth relatively small damages awards ... There is affirmative evidence that Congress intended the full punitive force of the statute to be felt by every person who defrauds the public through deceptive odometer manipulation joint wrongdoers no less so than others. "[J]udicial notions of fairness and equity must yield to the prophylactic policies of the treble-damage remedy." Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Milliken & Co., 690 F.2d 380 , 393 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 , 103 S.Ct. 1893 , 77 L.Ed.2d 283 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reliance upon the plain language and the remedial purpose of the statute, federal courts have held that odometer tampering defendants are separately liable under this statute and not entitled to assert cross-claims against each other for indemnity or contribution. See Charnetsky v. Gus Paulos Chevrolet, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 188, 190-91 (D.Utah 1991); Mataya v. Behm Motors, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 65, 70 (E.D.Wis. 1976); Stier v. Park Pontiac, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 397, 401 (S.D.W. Va. 1975); cf. Alley v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 767 F.2d 138, 141-42 (5th Cir.1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“each fraudulent transfer of an automobile is a separate violation of the federal odometer statute. Joint and several liability applies only where multiple defendants are responsible for a single tort, not where multiple defendants have each committed a separate tort. In any event, when Congress has intended to impose joint and several liability rather than separate and individual liability, it has so provided explicitly. [ Id. at 956-57 (citations omitted).]”
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.