Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 991 F.2d 71 - Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Metals Exchange Corp.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Metals Exchange Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

991 F.2d 71 · 1993

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
2
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Infinity Group Company (2000), Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hughes Capital Corporation (1997)

19 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

2701993200020102020decided

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 Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · Lombard v. Marcera · Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Manor Nursing Centers, 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Before its use in the Commodity Exchange Act context, disgorgement was used as an equitable remedy in injunctive actions brought under the Securities Exchange Act. Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act grants the courts equitable powers to enforce that Act. Though the Commodity Exchange Act has no provision similar to section 27, courts have found support for disgorgement in CFTC actions by relying on the general equity power of the federal courts.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “); 17 C.F.R. § 3.31 (requiring the reporting of any deficiencies, inaccuracies, or changes in prior registration statements). by this requirement that there be a relationship between the amount of disgorgement and the amount of ill-gotten gain.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “court may exercise its equitable power only over the property causally related to the wrongdoing.”
    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.