Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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.

1. “[The state charges] allege that Smith knowingly transacted business as a broker-dealer without being registered as such with the Indiana Secretary of State, Securities Division, as required ;by law, and without being exempt from registration. In those counts the offense is failing to register as a broker-dealer as required by law before transacting business as such and does not involve the same conduct as the conduct forming the basis for. Smith’s federal conviction, i.e., devising and participating in the scheme to defraud investors.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana · Amanda Dill v. State of Indiana

2. “Between 2004 and 2010, Smith and Ja-sen Snelling (“Snelling”) ran a Ponzi scheme out of CityFund Advisory (“Ci-tyFund”) and Dunhill Investment Advis-ors Ltd. (“Dunhill”). Central Registration Depository records showed that Snelling was listed as the President of CityFund, and Smith was listed as the Secretary/Treasurer. CityFund’s investment advisor license with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) was withdrawn in 2004, and Dunhill’s registered trust with the SEC was withdrawn in 2002., Smith has not been registered to sell securities .since May of 2008 and was never registered to sell securities through CityFund or Dun-hill. Of the securities sold through City-Fund and Dunhill, none were registered as required by law. In December, 2011, the .Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office filed a twenty-five count information against Smith related to this Ponzi scheme, Four victims, who were Indiana residents, were identified in the charges. Smith and Snelling told the victims that they were involved in day trading, were licensed to sell securities,’ and promised unusually high returns on the investments. A sealed federal indictment was filed against Smith by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio on June 4, 2012. The federal indictment charged Smith with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, obstruction, and tax evasion. The indictment generally alleged that between 2003 and 2011, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, Smith a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jerry A. Smith v. State of Indiana